| Literature DB >> 27635392 |
Ali Haghnegahdar1, Mahsa Sedighi1.
Abstract
Background and Aim. First-line treatment strategy for managing cervical disc herniation is conservative measures. In some cases, surgery is indicated either due to signs/symptoms of severe/progressive neurological deficits, or because of persistence of radicular pain despite 12 weeks of conservative treatment. Success for treatment of cervical disc herniation using ACDF has been successfully reported in the literature. We aim to determine the outcome of ACDF in treatment of cervical disc herniation among Iranians. Methods and Materials/Patients. In a retrospective cohort study, we evaluated 68 patients who had undergone ACDF for cervical disc herniation from March 2006 to March 2011. Outcome tools were as follows: (1) study-designed questionnaire that addressed residual and/or new complaints and subjective satisfaction with the operation; (2) recent (one week prior to the interview) postoperative VAS for neck and upper extremity radicular pain; (3) Japanese Orthopaedic Association Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ) (standard Persian version); and (4) follow-up cervical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and lateral X-ray. Results. With mean follow-up time of 52.93 (months) ± 31.89 SD (range: 13-131 months), we had success rates with regard to ΔVAS for neck and radicular pain of 88.2% and 89.7%, respectively. Except QOL functional score of JOAMEQ, 100% success rate for the other 4 functional scores of JOAMEQ was achieved. Conclusion. ACDF is a successful surgical technique for the management of cervical disc herniation among Iranian population.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27635392 PMCID: PMC5007372 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4654109
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurosci J ISSN: 2314-4262
JOAMEQ functional classes scores and success rates.
| Functional class | Median score | Success rate |
|---|---|---|
| CSF | 100 | 77.9 |
| UEF | 100 | 83.8 |
| LEF | 100 | 70.6 |
| BF | 100 | 79.4 |
| QOL | 56.25 | 11.8 |
CSF: cervical spine function; UEF: upper extremity function; LEF: lower extremity function; BF: bladder function; QOL: quality of life.
Figure 1Pre- and postoperative images of single-level ACDF.
Figure 2Pre- and postoperative images of single-level ACDF.
Figure 3Pre- and postoperative images of single-level ACDF.
Figure 4Postoperative X-ray of 2-level ACDF.
Figure 5Postoperative X-ray of ZeroP.
Figure 6Single-level ACDF with adjacent level disease that underwent operation for implanting an artificial disc.
| Variable | Frequency (number, percentage) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Sedentary | 39, 57.4 |
| With some level of activity | 20, 29.4 |
| Heavy | 9, 13.2 |
|
| |
|
| |
| Neck pain | 59, 86.8 |
| Upper extremity radicular pain | 59, 86.8 |
| Sensory complaints | 50, 73.5 |
| Headache | 6, 8.8 |
| Incontinency | 2, 2.9 |
| Chest discomfort | 1, 1.5 |
| Walking disability | 11, 16.2 |
| Limb stiffness | 5, 7.4 |
|
| |
|
| |
| <3 months | 24, 35.3 |
| 3–6 months | 16, 23.5 |
| 6–12 months | 5, 7.4 |
| 12–24 months | 1, 1.5 |
| >24 months | 22, 32.4 |
| Preoperative signs | Frequency |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Normal upper extremity reflex | 30, 44.1 |
| Hyperreflexia of upper extremity | 25, 36.8 |
| Hyporeflexia of upper extremity | 13, 19.1 |
| Normal lower extremity reflex | 43, 63.2 |
| Hyperreflexia in lower extremity | 22, 32.4 |
| Hyporeflexia in lower extremity | 3, 4.4 |
|
| |
|
| |
| 3/5 | 2, 2.9 |
| 4/5 | 48, 70.6 |
| 5/5 | 18, 26.5 |
|
| |
|
| |
| 3/5 | 1, 1.5 |
| 4/5 | 14, 20.6 |
| 5/5 | 53, 77.9 |
|
| |
|
| |
| Positive | 25, 36.8 |
| Negative | 43, 63.2 |
|
| |
|
| |
| Upward | 18, 26.5 |
| Downward | 50, 73.5 |
|
| |
|
| |
| Positive | 40, 58.8 |
| Negative | 28, 41.2 |