Literature DB >> 22872223

The risk of adjacent-level ossification development after surgery in the cervical spine: are there factors that affect the risk? A systematic review.

Han Jo Kim1, Michael P Kelly, Claire G Ely, Joseph R Dettori, K Daniel Riew.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: To answer the following clinical questions: (1) What is the risk of adjacent-level ossification development (ALOD) in patients receiving noninstrumented cervical fusion, instrumented cervical fusion with a plate, or cervical total disc arthroplasty?; (2) What are the risk factors for ALOD?; (3) What is the time course for the development of ALOD?; and (4) Does ALOD affect outcomes and rates of reoperation? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior cervical plating, total disc arthroplasty, and noninstrumented fusion have all been used in the treatment of cervical disc disease. There are numerous reports that identify ALOD, a form of heterotopic ossification, as a major risk factor after performing these procedures. Few studies have compared these 3 procedures to evaluate the risk, timing, and outcomes related to postoperation ALOD.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for articles published between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2011. We included all articles that described the risk of or risk factors for ALOD after surgical treatment of the cervical spine. Studies with patients older than 18 years or those treated for tumor or trauma were excluded from the study. In addition, those with posterior fusions, case reports, and case series with less than 10 patients were excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 5 studies met the inclusion criteria for our systematic review. The risk of ALOD with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion ranged from 41% to 64%, whereas the risk of ALOD after total disc replacement ranged from 6% to 24%. When ALOD did occur, there was a 2-fold higher risk of development at the cranial adjacent segment. The most important risk factor for the development of ALOD was the use of instrumentation and the plate-to-disc distance, although the surgical procedure type (corpectomy vs. discectomy and fusion) neared but did not reach statistical significance. Insufficient evidence was available to delineate the time course for its development and how ALOD affected outcomes.
CONCLUSION: The current body of literature suggests that ALOD will develop with the use of instrumentation and especially so if anterior instrumentation is placed within 5 mm of the adjacent cranial disc segment. In addition, total disc replacement showed lower rates for the development of ALOD compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at both short- and long-term follow-up. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: We recommend that the surgeon make every effort to keep the plate as far away from the adjacent disc as possible. Strength of Statement: Strong.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22872223     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826cb8f5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  18 in total

Review 1.  Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature.

Authors:  Fanor M Saavedra-Pozo; Renato A M Deusdara; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

2.  Two-level ACDF with a zero-profile stand-alone spacer compared to conventional plating: a prospective randomized single-center study.

Authors:  M Scholz; B Onal; P Schleicher; A Pingel; C Hoffmann; F Kandziora
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Prestige LP Disc Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Seven-Year Outcomes.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; J Kenneth Burkus; Mark E Shaffrey; Hui Nian; Frank E Harrell
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06-22

4.  A radiographic follow-up study of stand-alone-cage and graft-plate constructs for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Joseph F Baker; Jaime Gomez; Kartik Shenoy; Sarah Kim; Afshin Razi; Yong Kim
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12

5.  Longitudinal Study of the Six Degrees of Freedom Cervical Spine Range of Motion During Dynamic Flexion, Extension, and Rotation After Single-level Anterior Arthrodesis.

Authors:  William J Anderst; Tyler West; William F Donaldson; Joon Y Lee; James D Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.241

6.  A Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion versus Fusion Combined with Artificial Disc Replacement for Treating 3-Level Cervical Spondylotic Disease.

Authors:  Seo-Ryang Jang; Sang-Bok Lee; Kyoung-Suok Cho
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2017-10-25

7.  Minimally Invasive Anterior Cervical Discectomy Without Fusion to Treat Cervical Disc Herniations in Patients with Previous Cervical Fusions.

Authors:  Robert E Jacobson; Michelle Granville; Aldo Berti
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-04-03

Review 8.  Complications of Anterior and Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Keith Dip-Kei Luk
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-04-15

Review 9.  Adjacent Segment Pathology after Anterior Cervical Fusion.

Authors:  Jae Yoon Chung; Jong-Beom Park; Hyoung-Yeon Seo; Sung Kyu Kim
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-06-16

10.  Impact of T1 slope on surgical and adjacent segment degeneration after Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jia Li; Yong Shen; Peng Yang; Yongqian Li
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 2.423

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.