Literature DB >> 25378502

Risk-factor analysis of adjacent-segment pathology requiring surgery following anterior, posterior, fusion, and nonfusion cervical spine operations: survivorship analysis of 1358 patients.

Jae Chul Lee1, Sang-Hun Lee2, Colleen Peters3, K Daniel Riew3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adjacent-segment pathology is an important issue involving the cervical spine, but there have been few comprehensive studies of this problem. The purpose of the current study was to determine the risk factors for adjacent-segment pathology and to compare the survivorship of adjacent segments in patients who underwent cervical spine operations including arthrodesis and motion-sparing procedures.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 1358 patients with radiculopathy, myelopathy, or myeloradiculopathy who underwent cervical spine surgery performed by a single surgeon. We calculated the annual incidence of adjacent-segment pathology requiring surgery and, with use of Kaplan-Meier analysis, determined survivorship. Cox regression analysis was used to identify risk factors.
RESULTS: The index surgical procedures included cervical arthrodesis (1095 patients; 1038 anterior, twenty-nine posterior, and twenty-eight combined anterior and posterior), posterior decompression (214 patients; 145 laminoplasty and sixty-nine foraminotomy), arthroplasty (thirty-two patients), and a combination of arthroplasty and anterior arthrodesis (seventeen patients). Secondary surgery on adjacent segments occurred at a relatively constant rate of 2.3% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 2.9). Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that 21.9% of patients would need secondary surgery on adjacent segments by ten years postoperatively. Factors increasing the risk were smoking, female sex, and type of procedure. The posterior arthrodesis group (posterior-only or combined anterior and posterior arthrodesis) had a 7.5-times greater risk of adjacent-segment pathology requiring reoperation than posterior decompression, and a 3.0-times greater risk than the anterior arthrodesis group. However, when we compared the anterior cervical arthrodesis group, the arthroplasty group (arthroplasty or hybrid arthroplasty), and the posterior decompression group to each other, there were no significant differences. Age, neurological diagnosis, diabetes, and number of surgically treated segments were not significant risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with posterior or combined anterior and posterior arthrodesis were far more likely to develop clinical adjacent-segment pathology requiring surgery than those treated with posterior decompression or anterior arthrodesis. Smokers and women had a higher chance of clinical adjacent-segment pathology after cervical spine surgery.
Copyright © 2014 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25378502     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01482

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  24 in total

1.  Higher reoperation rate following cervical disc replacement in a retrospective, long-term comparative study of 715 patients.

Authors:  Martin Skeppholm; Thomas Henriques; Tycho Tullberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Adjacent level disease-background and update based on disc replacement data.

Authors:  I David Kaye; Alan S Hilibrand
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 3.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Joshua Meaike; Kris Radcliff; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

4.  Adjacent Segment Pathology After Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, Part 2: Clinical Results at 7-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Pierce D Nunley; Eubulus J Kerr; David A Cavanaugh; Phillip Andrew Utter; Peter G Campbell; Rishi Wadhwa; Kelly A Frank; Kyle E Marshall; Marcus B Stone
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-06-30

5.  Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases.

Authors:  Michael P Kelly; Claire D Eliasberg; Max S Riley; Remi M Ajiboye; Nelson F SooHoo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-03-31       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Pseudarthrosis of the Cervical Spine: Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Management.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Samuel K Cho
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-08-16

Review 7.  The Effects of Smoking and Smoking Cessation on Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Keith L Jackson; John G Devine
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2016-01-15

8.  Reoperations after fusion surgeries for degenerative spinal diseases depending on cervical and lumbar regions: a national database study.

Authors:  Moon Soo Park; Young-Su Ju; Seong-Hwan Moon; Young-Woo Kim; Jong Ho Jung; Jung Hyun Oh; Chi Heon Kim; Chun Kee Chung
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Surgical results with the use of Silicated Calcium Phosphate (SiCaP) as bone graft substitute in Posterior Spinal Fusion (PSF) for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS).

Authors:  Nanjundappa S Harshavardhana; Mohammed H H Noordeen
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2015-08-21

Review 10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.