Literature DB >> 20192660

Comparison between anterior and posterior decompression with instrumentation for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: sagittal alignment and clinical outcome.

Mario Cabraja1, Alexander Abbushi, Daniel Koeppen, Stefan Kroppenstedt, Christian Woiciechowsky.   

Abstract

OBJECT: A variety of anterior, posterior, and combined approaches exist to decompress the spinal cord, restore sagittal alignment, and avoid kyphosis, but the optimal surgical strategy remains controversial. The authors compared the anterior and posterior approach used to treat multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), focusing on sagittal alignment and clinical outcome.
METHODS: The authors studied 48 patients with CSM who underwent multilevel decompressive surgery using an anterior or posterior approach with instrumentation (24 patients in each group), depending on preoperative sagittal alignment and direction of spinal cord compression. In the anterior group, a 1-2-level corpectomy was followed by placement of an expandable titanium cage. In the posterior group, a multilevel laminectomy and posterior instrumentation using lateral mass screws was performed. Postoperative radiography and clinical examinations were performed after 1 week, 12 months, and at last follow-up (range 15-112 months, mean 33 months). The radiological outcome was evaluated using measurement of the cervical and segmental lordosis.
RESULTS: Both the posterior multilevel laminectomy (with instrumentation) and the anterior cervical corpectomy (with instrumentation) improved clinical outcome. The anterior group had a significantly lower preoperative cervical and segmental lordosis than the posterior group. The cervical and segmental lordosis improved in the anterior group by 8.8 and 6.2 degrees, respectively, and declined in the posterior group by 6.5 and 3.8 degrees, respectively. The loss of correction was higher in the anterior than in the posterior group (-2.0 vs -0.7 degrees, respectively) at last follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that both anterior and posterior decompression (with instrumentation) are effective procedures to improve the neurological outcome of patients with CSM. However, sagittal alignment may be better restored using the anterior approach, but harbors a higher rate of loss of correction. In cases involving a preexisting cervical kyphosis, an anterior or combined approach might be necessary to restore the lordotic cervical alignment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20192660     DOI: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09253

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  28 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of the use of expandable cages in the cervical spine.

Authors:  Benjamin D Elder; Sheng-Fu Lo; Thomas A Kosztowski; C Rory Goodwin; Ioan A Lina; John E Locke; Timothy F Witham
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 3.042

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

3.  C4 anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Ibrahim Obeid; Louis Boissière; Jean-Marc Vital
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Smith-Robinson procedure with and without Caspar plating as a treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A 26-year follow-up of 23 patients.

Authors:  Benedikt W Burkhardt; Moritz Brielmaier; Karsten Schwerdtfeger; Salam Sharif; Joachim M Oertel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Four-level anterior cervical discectomies and cage-augmented fusion with and without fixation.

Authors:  Mootaz Shousha; Ali Ezzati; Heinrich Boehm
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Cervical pedicle screw fixation combined with laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy with instability.

Authors:  Masashi Uehara; Jun Takahashi; Nobuhide Ogihara; Hiroki Hirabayashi; Hiroyuki Hashidate; Keijiro Mukaiyama; Masayuki Shimizu; Hiroyuki Kato
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2012-12-14

7.  Increased in-hospital complications after primary posterior versus primary anterior cervical fusion.

Authors:  Stavros G Memtsoudis; Alexander Hughes; Yan Ma; Ya Lin Chiu; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Postoperative cervical sagittal imbalance negatively affects outcomes after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Marie Roguski; Edward C Benzel; Jill N Curran; Subu N Magge; Erica F Bisson; Ajit A Krishnaney; Michael P Steinmetz; William E Butler; Robert F Heary; Zoher Ghogawala
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Clinical outcome of anterior vs posterior approach for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Mario Alberto Cahueque Lemus; Andres Enrique Cobar Bustamante; Alfredo Ortiz Muciño; Gustavo Caldera Hernandez
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2016-03-26

10.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages.

Authors:  Mario Cabraja; Soner Oezdemir; Daniel Koeppen; Stefan Kroppenstedt
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.