Literature DB >> 25394319

Comparison of Smith-Petersen osteotomy versus pedicle subtraction osteotomy versus anterior-posterior osteotomy types for the correction of cervical spine deformities.

Han Jo Kim1, Chaiwat Piyaskulkaew, K Daniel Riew.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective case controlled study.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the amount of correction obtained with different types of osteotomies in the cervical spine when treating cervical deformity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the corrective power of various osteotomies in the thoracic and lumbar spine are well described, there are no reports in the literature on the corrective capabilities of osteotomies in the cervical spine to guide preoperative planning for cervical and cervicothoracic deformities.
METHODS: Patients who underwent cervical osteotomies for cervical deformity were identified in a 10-year period from 2000 to 2010. Demographics, surgery type, osteotomy type (Smith-Petersen Osteotomy [SPO], pedicle subtraction osteotomy [PSO], anterior-osteotomy [ATO]), operative details, and radiographs were collected for preoperative and ultimate postoperative time points. Cervical lordosis and basion plumb line were collected to assess angular and translational corrections.
RESULTS: A total of 61 patients had surgery for cervical deformity in the study period. The mean angular correction generated through 1 SPO was 10.1° per level (range, 1.0°-24.9°/level) and the mean translational correction was 1.8 cm (range, 0.5-4.0 cm/SPO). A PSO generated a mean angular correction of 34.5° (range, 28.2°- 80.0°/level, maximum 1/case) per PSO and translational correction of 2.5 cm per PSO (range, 0.2-5.6 cm). An ATO generated a mean angular correction of 17.1° per osteotomy (range, 3.5°-32.1°/level) and translational correction of 1.0 cm per osteotomy (range, 0.1-3.0 cm/level; total, 0.5-3 cm). Combined ATO and SPO with posterior cervical fusion generated a mean angular correction of 27.8° per osteotomy (range, 3.7°-66.7°/level) and translational correction of 2.6 cm per osteotomy (range, 0.2-7.0 cm/level).
CONCLUSION: Posteriorly based osteotomies provided better translational correction than ATOs. The angular correction achieved by 1 PSO was similar to ATO+SPOs. ATO+SPOs provided equal or better corrections than isolated PSOs, with equal length of stay and less estimated blood loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25394319     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000707

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


  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.  Expert's comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled "Correction of dropped head deformity through combined anterior and posterior osteotomies to restore horizontal gaze and improve sagittal alignment" by W.H. Bronson et al. [Eur Spine J (2017): doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5184-6].

Authors:  Pedro Berjano
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Osteotomies in ankylosing spondylitis: where, how many, and how much?

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Juliane Koller; Michael Mayer; Axel Hempfing; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-30       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Anterior cervical osteotomy: operative technique.

Authors:  Lee A Tan; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Correction of dropped head deformity through combined anterior and posterior osteotomies to restore horizontal gaze and improve sagittal alignment.

Authors:  Wesley H Bronson; Michael J Moses; Themistocles S Protopsaltis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Etiology and treatment of cervical kyphosis: state of the art review-a narrative review.

Authors:  Yoji Ogura; John R Dimar; Mladen Djurasovic; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09

8.  Characteristics of deformity surgery in patients with severe and rigid cervical kyphosis (CK): results of the CSRS-Europe multi-centre study project.

Authors:  H Koller; C Ames; H Mehdian; R Bartels; R Ferch; V Deriven; H Toyone; C Shaffrey; J Smith; W Hitzl; J Schröder; Yohan Robinson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Factors Affecting Postoperative Sagittal Alignment after Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity: Posterior Osteotomy, Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Rupture, and Endplate Injury.

Authors:  Hiroaki Nakashima; Tokumi Kanemura; Kotaro Satake; Yoshimoto Ishikawa; Jun Ouchida; Naoki Segi; Hidetoshi Yamaguchi; Shiro Imagama
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2019-06-03

Review 10.  Osteotomies in the Cervical Spine.

Authors:  Venu M Nemani; Peter B Derman; Han Jo Kim
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-02-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.