Literature DB >> 24785487

An algorithmic strategy for selecting a surgical approach in cervical deformity correction.

Shannon Hann1, Nohra Chalouhi, Ravichandra Madineni, Alexander R Vaccaro, Todd J Albert, James Harrop, Joshua E Heller.   

Abstract

Adult degenerative cervical kyphosis is a debilitating disease that often requires complex surgical management. Young spine surgeons, residents, and fellows are often confused as to which surgical approach to choose due to lack of experience, absence of a systematic method of surgical management, and today's plethora of information regarding surgical techniques. Although surgeons may be able to perform anterior, posterior, or combined (360°) approaches to the cervical spine, many struggle to rationally choose an appropriate approach for deformity correction. The authors introduce an algorithm based on morphology and pathology of adult cervical kyphosis to help the surgeon select the appropriate approach when performing cervical deformity surgery. Cervical deformities are categorized into 5 different prevalent morphological types encountered in clinical settings. A surgical approach tailored to each category/type of deformity is then discussed, with a concrete case illustration provided for each. Preoperative assessment of kyphosis, determination of the goal for surgery, and the complications associated with cervical deformity correction are also summarized. This article's goal is to assist with understanding the big picture for surgical management in cervical spinal deformity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24785487     DOI: 10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1429

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Adult cervical deformity: radiographic and osteotomy classifications.

Authors:  Bassel G Diebo; Neil V Shah; Maximillian Solow; Vincent Challier; Carl B Paulino; Peter G Passias; Renaud Lafage; Frank J Schwab; Han Jo Kim; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  An in vitro evaluation of sagittal alignment in the cervical spine after insertion of supraphysiologic lordotic implants.

Authors:  Donald J Blaskiewicz; Jeffrey E Harris; Patrick P Han; Alexander W Turner; Gregory M Mundis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  A cohort study of the morbidity of combined anterior-posterior cervical spinal fusions: incidence and predictors of postoperative dysphagia.

Authors:  Kevin A Reinard; Diana M Cook; Hesham M Zakaria; Azam M Basheer; Victor W Chang; Muwaffak M Abdulhak
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  How Cervical Reconstruction Surgery Affects Global Spinal Alignment.

Authors:  Jun Mizutani; Russell Strom; Kuniyoshi Abumi; Kenji Endo; Ken Ishii; Mitsuru Yagi; Bobby Tay; Vedat Deviren; Christopher Ames
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  Cervical Spine Deformity Correction Techniques.

Authors:  Alexander B Dru; Dennis Timothy Lockney; Sasha Vaziri; Matthew Decker; Adam J Polifka; W Christopher Fox; Daniel J Hoh
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2019-09-30

6.  Surgical and Functional Outcomes of Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Patients With Mild Kyphotic Cervical Alignment.

Authors:  Narihito Nagoshi; Satoshi Nori; Osahiko Tsuji; Satoshi Suzuki; Eijiro Okada; Mitsuru Yagi; Masaya Nakamura; Morio Matsumoto; Kota Watanabe
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2021-12-31

7.  Limited morbidity and possible radiographic benefit of C2 vs. subaxial cervical upper-most instrumented vertebrae.

Authors:  Peter G Passias; Cole A Bortz; Frank Segreto; Samantha Horn; Katherine E Pierce; Haddy Alas; Avery E Brown; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Justin S Smith; Breton Line; Robert Eastlack; Daniel M Sciubba; Eric O Klineberg; Alexandra Soroceanu; Douglas C Burton; Frank J Schwab; Shay Bess; Christopher I Shaffrey; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-06

8.  Changes in cervical sagittal alignment and the effects on cervical parameters in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after laminoplasty.

Authors:  Ali Fahir Özer; Özkan Ateş; Önder Çerezci; Mehdi Hekimoğlu; Ahmet Levent Aydın; Tunç Öktenoğlu; Mehdi Sasani
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-06-10

9.  The influence of sagittal profile alteration and final lordosis on the clinical outcome of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A Delta-Omega-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Koeppen; Claudia Piepenbrock; Stefan Kroppenstedt; Mario Čabraja
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The impact of postoperative neurologic complications on recovery kinetics in cervical deformity surgery.

Authors:  Peter Gust Passias; Avery E Brown; Haddy Alas; Katherine E Pierce; Cole A Bortz; Bassel Diebo; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Douglas C Burton; Robert Hart; Han Jo Kim; Shay Bess; Kevin Moattari; Rachel Joujon-Roche; Oscar Krol; Tyler Williamson; Peter Tretiakov; Bailey Imbo; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Christopher Shaffrey; Frank Schwab; Robert Eastlack; Breton Line; Eric Klineberg; Justin Smith; Christopher Ames
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-12-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.