Zhonghai Li1,2, Huadong Wang1, Jiaguang Tang1, Dongfeng Ren1, Li Li1, Shuxun Hou1, Hailong Zhang3, Tiesheng Hou3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, The People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, The People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Tenth People's Hospital of TongJi University, Shanghai, The People's Republic of China.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical series. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative parameters, clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and complication rates of three reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: At present, the decision to treat multilevel CSM, especially four-level CSM, remains controversial. No one compares multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF), segmental anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (sACCF) to multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cage alone (mACDF-CA) in four-level constructs. METHODS: Between July 2006 and February 2014, 97 consecutive patients with four-level CSM were enrolled in this study and divided into sACCF (n = 39) group, mACDF (n = 31) group, and mACDF-CA (n = 27) group. The study compared perioperative parameters, complication rates, clinical and radiologic parameters of three reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of four-level CSM. RESULTS: The mACDF-CA group had the least bleeding and cost of index surgery compared with the sACCF group having the most bleeding and cost. Although significant pain relief and functional activity improvement have been achieved in the three groups at the final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the Japanese Orthopedic Association, SF-36 and NDI scores among the three groups (P >0.05). The mACDF group maintained the best cervical lordosis at the final follow-up, compared with the sACCF group maintained the worst cervical lordosis. Solid fusion was achieved in 87.1% of subjects in sACCF group, 90.3% in mACDF, and in 88.9% in mACDF-CA. The mACDF-CA group had a higher rate of subsidence and lower rate of dysphagia than other two groups. CONCLUSION: mACDF-CA can be considered an effective and safe alternative procedure in the treatment of the four-level CSM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical series. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative parameters, clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and complication rates of three reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: At present, the decision to treat multilevel CSM, especially four-level CSM, remains controversial. No one compares multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF), segmental anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (sACCF) to multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cage alone (mACDF-CA) in four-level constructs. METHODS: Between July 2006 and February 2014, 97 consecutive patients with four-level CSM were enrolled in this study and divided into sACCF (n = 39) group, mACDF (n = 31) group, and mACDF-CA (n = 27) group. The study compared perioperative parameters, complication rates, clinical and radiologic parameters of three reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of four-level CSM. RESULTS: The mACDF-CA group had the least bleeding and cost of index surgery compared with the sACCF group having the most bleeding and cost. Although significant pain relief and functional activity improvement have been achieved in the three groups at the final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the Japanese Orthopedic Association, SF-36 and NDI scores among the three groups (P >0.05). The mACDF group maintained the best cervical lordosis at the final follow-up, compared with the sACCF group maintained the worst cervical lordosis. Solid fusion was achieved in 87.1% of subjects in sACCF group, 90.3% in mACDF, and in 88.9% in mACDF-CA. The mACDF-CA group had a higher rate of subsidence and lower rate of dysphagia than other two groups. CONCLUSION:mACDF-CA can be considered an effective and safe alternative procedure in the treatment of the four-level CSM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.