Literature DB >> 19850532

Comparison of anterior cervical fusion after two-level discectomy or single-level corpectomy: sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, graft collapse, and adjacent-level ossification.

Yung Park1, Takeshi Maeda, Woojin Cho, K Daniel Riew.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Single-level corpectomy and two-level discectomy with anterior cervical plating have been reported to have comparable fusion and complication rates. However, there are few large series that have compared the two for sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, graft subsidence, and adjacent-level ossification.
PURPOSE: To determine the differences between these two procedures for patients with two-level spondylosis by comparing the pre- and postoperative radiographic data. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data in an academic institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: Fifty-two with a single-level corpectomy and 45 with a two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre- and postoperative radiographic data for sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, subsidence, and adjacent-level ossification.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the lateral cervical radiographs of patients who had a solid fusion after a single-level cervical corpectomy or a two-level ACDF for the treatment of a degenerative cervical spondylosis by a surgeon at an academic institution. The choice of the operation was dependent on the presence or absence of retrovertebral compression. All patients underwent anterior cervical fusion using fibula strut allograft and variable-angle screw-plate fixation. None had had prior cervical spine surgery. Twenty-five were excluded because of inadequate radiographs and follow-up. There were 52 with a single-level corpectomy and 45 with a two-level ACDF. The following were analyzed: 1) sagittal alignment (modified method of Toyama); 2) cervical lordosis measured by Cobb angles of fusion constructs (fusion Cobb) and C2-C7 (C2-C7 Cobb); 3) graft collapse determined by the subsidence of anterior/posterior body height of fused segments (anterior/posterior subsidence) and the cranial/caudal plate-to-disc distances (cranial/caudal subsidence), and the difference between anterior and posterior body height for the fused levels (anteroposterior [AP] difference); and 4) the severity of ossification at two adjacent levels.
RESULTS: The mean durations of follow-up were 23.3+/-6.6 (corpectomy) and 25.7+/-6.2 (ACDF) months, range 12 to 45 months. There were no significant differences between the two groups in sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, graft collapse, and adjacent-level ossification. Graft subsidence and loss of cervical lordosis occurred significantly more during the first 6 weeks after surgery (all measurements, p<.0001) than after 6 weeks, with no significant difference between the two groups. Posterior and caudal end plate subsidence significantly progressed after 6 weeks in Group 1 (p=.04, p=.02). The final follow-up Cobb angle positively correlated with preoperative and immediate postoperative Cobb angles (r=0.437, p<.0001; r=0.727, p<.0001), caudal subsidence (r=0.270, p=.008), and the final AP difference (r=0.915, p<.0001) but did not correlate with surgery level, preoperative and final sagittal alignments, anterior/posterior subsidence, and cranial subsidence. Anterior/posterior subsidence was significantly more strongly related with caudal subsidence (r=0.607, p<.0001; r=0.424, p<.0001) than cranial (r=0.277, p=.007; r=0.211, p=.040) but did not correlate with pre- and postoperative fusion Cobb, and preoperative and the last sagittal alignments.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the two procedures yield comparable results in terms of sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, graft subsidence, and adjacent-level ossification. Graft subsidence and loss of cervical lordosis appeared to occur mainly during the first 6 weeks after surgery. Single-level corpectomy and fusion continued to subside at the posterior portion of caudal end plate even after 6 weeks. On the other hand, graft subsidence did not correlate with preoperative and final postoperative sagittal alignments. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19850532     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.09.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  34 in total

1.  Meta-Analysis Comparing Zero-Profile Spacer and Anterior Plate in Anterior Cervical Fusion.

Authors:  Jun Dong; Meng Lu; Teng Lu; Baobao Liang; Junkui Xu; Jun Zhou; Hongjun Lv; Jie Qin; Xuan Cai; Sihua Huang; Haopeng Li; Dong Wang; Xijing He
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Multi- versus single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparing sagittal alignment, early adjacent segment degeneration, and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Bryce A Basques; Philip K Louie; Jeremy Mormol; Jannat M Khan; Kamran Movassaghi; Justin C Paul; Arya Varthi; Edward J Goldberg; Howard S An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The application of a new type of titanium mesh cage in hybrid anterior decompression and fusion technique for the treatment of continuously three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Xiaowei Liu; Yu Chen; Haisong Yang; Tiefeng Li; Haidong Xu; Bin Xu; Deyu Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  New technical tip for anterior cervical plating : make hole first and choose the proper plate size later.

Authors:  Jeong Yoon Park; Ho Yeol Zhang; Min Chul Oh
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2011-04-30

5.  Anterior surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: review article.

Authors:  John C Quinn; Paul D Kiely; Darren R Lebl; Alexander P Hughes
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-08-08

6.  Comparisons of Two-level Discectomy and Fusion with Cage Alone versus Single-level Corpectomy and Fusion with Plate in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease.

Authors:  Bok Young Ha; Hong Bo Sim; In Uk Lyo; Eun Suk Park; Soon Chan Kwon; Jun Bum Park
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2012-09-30

7.  [Multilevel segmental interbody fusion versus vertebral body replacement: comparison of two operative methods].

Authors:  D Daentzer; N Bianchi; D-K Böker; W Deinsberger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 8.  Strategies to Achieve Spinal Fusion in Multilevel Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: An Overview.

Authors:  Michael H McCarthy; Joseph A Weiner; Alpesh A Patel
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-12-09

9.  The Utility of Cervical Spine Bracing As a Postoperative Adjunct to Multilevel Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Ian F Caplan; Saurabh Sinha; Benjamin Osiemo; Scott D McClintock; James M Schuster; Harvey Smith; Gregory Glauser; Nikhil Sharma; Ali K Ozturk; Zarina S Ali; Neil R Malhotra
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-04-30

10.  Comparison between selective caudal fixed screw construct and all variable screw construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Jae Jun Yang; Sehan Park; Seongyun Park
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.