OBJECT: Previous studies have demonstrated that patients with spinal fusion are at greater risk for adjacent-segment disease and require additional surgery. It has been postulated that excessive motion of a given motion segment unit (MSU) leads to an increased risk of disc degeneration. It is the authors' hypothesis that a greater increase in adjacent-segment motion will be observed following a 2-level versus a single-level anterior cervical discectomy and instrumented fusion (ACDF). Therefore, they undertook this study to determine the effect of single-level versus 2-level ACDF on the biomechanics of adjacent MSUs. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen human cervical spines were used in this study. The specimens were potted at C-4 and T-1 and tested in flexion and extension. Range of motion (ROM) was 30° of flexion and 15° of extension at a maximum load of 50 N. The specimens were tested intact and then were randomized into 2 groups of 5 specimens each. Group 1 underwent a single-level ACDF at the C5-6 level first, and Group 2 underwent the procedure at the C6-7 level. After testing, both groups had the fusion extended to include the C5-7 levels, and the testing was repeated. Changes in overall ROM, stiffness, and segmental motion were calculated and statistically analyzed using a paired Student t-test. RESULTS: An increase in sagittal ROM of 31.30% above (p = 0.012) and 33.88% below (p = 0.066) the fused MSU was found comparing a 2-level with a 1-level ACDF. The overall stiffness of the entire spinal construct increased 37.34% (p = 0.051) in extension and 30.59% (p = 0.013) in flexion as the second fusion level was added. As expected, the overall sagittal ROM of the entire spinal construct decreased by 13.68% (p = 0.0014) with a 2-level compared with a 1-level fusion. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the biomechanics at adjacent levels to a cervical spine fusion are altered and that there is increased adjacent-segment motion at the levels above and below, after a 2-level compared with a 1-level ACDF.
OBJECT: Previous studies have demonstrated that patients with spinal fusion are at greater risk for adjacent-segment disease and require additional surgery. It has been postulated that excessive motion of a given motion segment unit (MSU) leads to an increased risk of disc degeneration. It is the authors' hypothesis that a greater increase in adjacent-segment motion will be observed following a 2-level versus a single-level anterior cervical discectomy and instrumented fusion (ACDF). Therefore, they undertook this study to determine the effect of single-level versus 2-level ACDF on the biomechanics of adjacent MSUs. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen human cervical spines were used in this study. The specimens were potted at C-4 and T-1 and tested in flexion and extension. Range of motion (ROM) was 30° of flexion and 15° of extension at a maximum load of 50 N. The specimens were tested intact and then were randomized into 2 groups of 5 specimens each. Group 1 underwent a single-level ACDF at the C5-6 level first, and Group 2 underwent the procedure at the C6-7 level. After testing, both groups had the fusion extended to include the C5-7 levels, and the testing was repeated. Changes in overall ROM, stiffness, and segmental motion were calculated and statistically analyzed using a paired Student t-test. RESULTS: An increase in sagittal ROM of 31.30% above (p = 0.012) and 33.88% below (p = 0.066) the fused MSU was found comparing a 2-level with a 1-level ACDF. The overall stiffness of the entire spinal construct increased 37.34% (p = 0.051) in extension and 30.59% (p = 0.013) in flexion as the second fusion level was added. As expected, the overall sagittal ROM of the entire spinal construct decreased by 13.68% (p = 0.0014) with a 2-level compared with a 1-level fusion. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the biomechanics at adjacent levels to a cervical spine fusion are altered and that there is increased adjacent-segment motion at the levels above and below, after a 2-level compared with a 1-level ACDF.
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
Authors: Stephen R Chen; Clarissa M LeVasseur; Samuel Pitcairn; Maria A Munsch; Brandon K Couch; Adam S Kanter; David O Okonkwo; Jeremy D Shaw; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; William J Anderst Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.241