Literature DB >> 19662441

Comparison of ventral corpectomy and plate-screw-instrumented fusion with dorsal laminectomy and rod-screw-instrumented fusion for treatment of at least two vertebral-level spondylotic cervical myelopathy.

Rudolf Andreas Kristof1, Thomas Kiefer, Marcus Thudium, Florian Ringel, Michael Stoffel, Attlila Kovacs, Christian-Andreas Mueller.   

Abstract

The objective of the article is to verify the hypothesis that the dorsal multilevel laminectomy and rod-screw-instrumented fusion (DLF) for multilevel spondylotic cervical myelopathy (MSCM) is less strenuous for patients, and less prone to perioperative complications, than ventral multilevel corpectomy and plate-screw-instrumented fusion (VCF), while clinical outcome is comparable. One hundred and three successive patients were treated for at least two vertebral-level MSCM, 42 of them by VCF and 61 by DLF. The two patients groups were retrospectively compared. VCF patients were slightly younger than DLF patients (62.5 +/- 10.61 years versus 66 +/- 12.4 years, P = 0.012). In VCF patients, a median of 2 (2-3) corpectomies and in DLF patients a median of 3 (2-5) laminectomies were performed. In VCF patients, surgery lasted longer than in DLF patients (229 +/- 60 min versus 183 +/- 46 min, P < or = 0.001). Between the VCF and the DLF patients groups, no significant difference was found in perioperative complications (e.g. hardware failure rates of 16.7% in VCF and of 6.6% in the DLF patients) and mortality rates. The postoperative outcome, as assessed by the postoperative change of the Nurick scores, the change of neck pain, the patients' satisfaction, and the change of the subaxial Cobb angle of the spine did not differ between the two patients groups. However, when comparing the postoperative Nurick scores directly, VCF patients fared somewhat better than DLF patients [median of 2 (0-5) versus 3 (1-5), P = 0.003]. The hypothesized advantages of DLF over VCF in the surgical treatment of at least two vertebral-level MSCM could not be confirmed in this retrospective study. A prospective randomized study is warranted to clarify this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19662441      PMCID: PMC2899447          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1110-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  27 in total

1.  The in vitro effects of instrumentation on multilevel cervical strut-graft mechanics.

Authors:  K T Foley; D J DiAngelo; Y R Rampersaud; K A Vossel; T H Jansen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Early reconstruction failures after multilevel cervical corpectomy.

Authors:  Rick C Sasso; Robert A Ruggiero; Thomas M Reilly; Peter V Hall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Cervical spinal stenosis: outcome after anterior corpectomy, allograft reconstruction, and instrumentation.

Authors:  Matthew T Mayr; Brian R Subach; Christopher H Comey; Gerald E Rodts; Regis W Haid
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 4.  Surgical options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Matthew J Geck; Frank J Eismont
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.472

5.  Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years.

Authors:  E Wada; S Suzuki; A Kanazawa; T Matsuoka; S Miyamoto; K Yonenobu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis.

Authors:  Charles C Edwards; John G Heller; Hideki Murakami
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  G J Kaptain; N E Simmons; R E Replogle; L Pobereskin
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 8.  Cervical laminoplasty: a critical review.

Authors:  John K Ratliff; Paul R Cooper
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  Laminectomy and posterior cervical plating for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: effects on cervical alignment, spinal cord compression, and neurological outcome.

Authors:  John K Houten; Paul R Cooper
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.654

10.  Graft migration or displacement after multilevel cervical corpectomy and strut grafting.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Wang; Robert A Hart; Sanford E Emery; Henry H Bohlman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  20 in total

1.  The stabilizing potential of anterior, posterior and combined techniques for the reconstruction of a 2-level cervical corpectomy model: biomechanical study and first results of ATPS prototyping.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Rene Schmidt; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl; Juliane Zenner; Stefan Midderhoff; Stefan Middendorf; Nicolaus Graf; Nicolaus Gräf; H Resch; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Hans-Joachim Willke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Cervical laminectomy and instrumented lateral mass fusion: techniques, pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Michael Mayer; Oliver Meier; Alexander Auffarth; Heiko Koller
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bin Zhu; Yilan Xu; Xiaoguang Liu; Zhongjun Liu; Gengting Dang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Comparison of anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Jiaquan Luo; Kai Cao; Sheng Huang; Liangping Li; Ting Yu; Cong Cao; Rui Zhong; Ming Gong; Zhiyu Zhou; Xuenong Zou
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Retrospective analysis of cervical corpectomies: implant-related complications of one- and two-level corpectomies in 45 patients.

Authors:  Sebastian Hartmann; P Kavakebi; C Wipplinger; A Tschugg; P P Girod; S Lener; C Thomé
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 6.  Anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevel cervical myelopathy, which one is better? A systematic review.

Authors:  Tao Liu; Wen Xu; Tao Cheng; Hui-Lin Yang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Relevance of expandable titanium cage for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Fahed Zaïri; Rabih Aboukais; Laurent Thines; Mohamed Allaoui; Richard Assaker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Multilevel oblique corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy preserves segmental motion.

Authors:  Ari George Chacko; Mathew Joseph; Mazda Keki Turel; Krishna Prabhu; Roy Thomas Daniel; K S Jacob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Reduction in range of cervical motion on serial long-term follow-up in patients undergoing oblique corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Mazda K Turel; Sauradeep Sarkar; Krishna Prabhu; Roy T Daniel; K S Jacob; Ari G Chacko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Biomechanical testing of circumferential instrumentation after cervical multilevel corpectomy.

Authors:  Sebastian Hartmann; Claudius Thomé; Alexander Keiler; Helga Fritsch; Aldemar Andres Hegewald; Werner Schmölz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-08-02       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.