Literature DB >> 22885828

Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: a systematic review.

Brandon D Lawrence1, Alan S Hilibrand, Erika D Brodt, Joseph R Dettori, Darrel S Brodke.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to determine the risk and to define potential identifiable risk factors for the development of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) after cervical fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: During the past several decades, the indications for spinal arthrodesis have expanded, with a dramatic increase in the rate of cervical spine fusion in the United States during the past decade. However, as more of these procedures are performed over time, there have been concerns regarding the potential for these patients to develop changes at levels adjacent to the index procedure. Questions remain whether the development of clinical ASP (CASP) are iatrogenic in nature or part of natural history.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken for articles published in English language between 1990 and March 15, 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify articles reporting risk factors for CASP after cervical fusion. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence and the overall quality of the literature using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
RESULTS: We identified 5 studies (4 retrospective cohorts, 1 database study) from our search strategy that met the inclusion criteria from a total of 176 possible studies for review. The prevalence of CASP ranged from 11% to 12% at 5 years, 16% to 38% at 10 years, and 33% at 17 years. Factors that may contribute to the development of CASP include age less than 60 years, fusing adjacent to the C5-C6 and/or C6-C7 levels, a pre-existing disc herniation, and/or dural compression secondary to spinal stenosis with a mean anteroposterior diameter spinal canal of 13 mm or smaller.
CONCLUSION: CASP remains a controversial topic despite multiple attempts of elucidating an iatrogenic effect of spinal fusion versus the natural history of spinal degeneration. The mean rate of the development of symptomatic degeneration in the cervical spine after arthrodesis is estimated between 1.6% and 4.2% per year. The mean rate of reoperation for CASP is estimated at 0.8% per year. In addition, fusing adjacent to but not including the C5-C6 and/or C6-C7 disc spaces seems to consistently increase the risk of developing CASP. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: 1. The risk of developing new symptoms secondary to adjacent segment pathology causing radiculopathy and/or myelopathy after cervical fusion surgery ranges from a cumulative rate of 1.6% to 4.2% per year. Strength of Statement: Strong. 2. The risk of developing adjacent-level symptoms may be increased if disc protrusion, disc degeneration, or cord effacement is present at C5–C6 and/or C6–C7 and if those levels are adjacent to the planned surgical level. Strength of Statement: Strong.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22885828     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d60fb

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


  26 in total

1.  Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Giovanni Grasso
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: review and update for radiologists.

Authors:  Kimia Khalatbari Kani; Felix S Chew
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

Authors:  John D Koerner; Christopher K Kepler; Todd J Albert
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-07-25

4.  Adjacent segment pathology following anterior decompression and fusion using cage and plate for the treatment of degenerative cervical spinal diseases.

Authors:  Kyung-Jin Song; Byung-Wan Choi; Jong-Kil Kim
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-12-17

Review 5.  Risk factors for the development of degenerative cervical myelopathy: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Guillaume Baucher; Jelena Taskovic; Lucas Troude; Granit Molliqaj; Aria Nouri; Enrico Tessitore
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 6.  Cervical sagittal balance: a biomechanical perspective can help clinical practice.

Authors:  Avinash G Patwardhan; Saeed Khayatzadeh; Robert M Havey; Leonard I Voronov; Zachary A Smith; Olivia Kalmanson; Alexander J Ghanayem; William Sears
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement.

Authors:  Branko Skovrlj; Dong-Ho Lee; John Michael Caridi; Samuel Kang-Wook Cho
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2015-06-08

8.  One-Level Versus 2-Level Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Fusion: Outcomes Up to 7 Years.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Todd H Lanman; J Kenneth Burkus; Scott D Hodges; Jeffrey R McConnell; Randall F Dryer; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31

9.  Multilevel cervical arthroplasty-clinical and radiological outcomes.

Authors:  Rui Reinas; Djamel Kitumba; Leopoldina Pereira; António M Baptista; Óscar L Alves
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-03

10.  Biomechanical Determination of Distal Level for Fusions across the Cervicothoracic Junction.

Authors:  Ivan Cheng; Eric B Sundberg; Alex Iezza; Derek P Lindsey; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-02-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.