| Literature DB >> 31607073 |
Harsh Deora1, Se-Hoon Kim2, Sanjay Behari1, Satish Rudrappa3, Vedantam Rajshekhar4, Mehmet Zileli5, Jutty K B C Parthiban6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to review the literature and to present the most up-to-date information and recommendations on the indications, complications, and success rate of anterior surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The commonly performed anterior surgical procedures are multiple-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion and its variants (skip corpectomy and hybrid surgery), and oblique corpectomy without fusion.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical spondylosis; Complications; Compressive myelopathy; Discectomy; Outcomes assessment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31607073 PMCID: PMC6790738 DOI: 10.14245/ns.1938250.125
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurospine ISSN: 2586-6591
Studies on natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM)
| Study | No. of patients | Diagnostic methods | Mean age (yr) | Mean duration of symptoms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarke and Robinson [ | 120 | Myelography, surgery, autopsy | 53 | 3 yr | • 75% Deteriorated in a stepwise fashion |
| • 20% Slow, steady progression of the disease | |||||
| • 5% Developed rapid onset of symptoms and signs, then remained stable for | |||||
| Lees and Turner [ | Group I (myelopathy): 44 | Radiology, myelography | Group I: 40 | Group I: 5 yr | • Group I: long periods without new or worsening symptoms. Exacerbations can occur at longer shorter intervals for many years. |
| Group II (nonmyelopathy): 51 | Group II: 50 | Group II: 6–10 yr | • Group II: 12 (66%) of 18 improved while wearing collar; 15 (60%) of 25 improved without wearing a collar during or after physiotherapy, osteopathy, manipulation; 3 of 5 improved without treatment; and 2 improved with rest only. | ||
| Nurick [ | 91 | Clinical (Nurick grade) and radiology | Conservative: 59 | Conservative: 31 mo | • Both laminectomy and conservative groups had 27 cases in grade I or II at presentation. Eighteen conservative and 24 laminectomy patients remained in this group (p>0.05). |
| Conservative: 37 | Laminectomy: 53 | Laminectomy: 27.2 mo | |||
| Laminectomy: 45 | Fusion: 52 | Fusion: 23.1 mo | • Forty-three patients in grades 1, 2, or 3 aged less than 60 years, and 3 of these deteriorated. Of 32 patients aged 60 years or more 13 deteriorated. | ||
| Fusion: 7 | |||||
| Combined: 2 | |||||
| Sadasivan et al., [ | 22 | Clinical (Nurick grade) X-rays and MRI | 50.8 | 6.3 yr | All cases deteriorated from grade II at presentation: |
| Grade III - 1 | |||||
| Grade IV - 17 | |||||
| Grade V - 4 | |||||
| Nakamura et al., [ | 64 | Clinical (JOA classification) and radiology | 52 | >1 yr | • Upper extremity: Improved by >1 grade in 31 (57%), unchanged in 25 (45%). |
| • Lower extremity: Improved in 35 (57%), unchanged 24 (39%), worse 2 (3%). Younger patients achieved no disability (grade IV) more frequently | |||||
| Wu et al., [ | 14,140 | Radiology | N/A | 13,461 person year | • Cervical cord injury was approximately 1.5 times more likely to ensue in CSM patients who were managed without surgery than in those who underwent surgery to treat CSM. |
| Operated: 4,684.71 | |||||
| Control: 13,461.44 |
MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; N/A, not available.
Characteristics of the 9 studies included in the review of ACDF vs. ACCF for treatment of CSM [10]
| Study | Design | Sample size | Mean age (yr) | Sex, male:female | Mean follow-up (mo) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oh et al., [ | RCT | ACCF: 17 | ACCF: 55.12 | 16:15 | ACCF: 27.33 |
| ACDF: 14 | ACDF: 52.64 | ACDF: 24.9 | |||
| Yu et al., [ | RCT | ACCF: 20 | ACCF: 53.1 | ACCF: 14:6 | N/A |
| ACDF: 20 | ACDF: 52.75 | ACDF: 15:5 | |||
| Liu et al., [ | RCS | ACCF: 23 | ACCF: 54.4 | ACCF: 18:5 | ACCF: 31 |
| ACDF: 23 | ACDF: 56.5 | ACDF: 16:7 | ACDF: 29 | ||
| Park et al., [ | RCS | ACCF: 52 | ACCF: 49.4 | ACCF: 30:22 | ACCF: 23.3 |
| ACDF: 45 | ACDF: 49.3 | ACDF: 17:28 | ACDF: 25.7 | ||
| Wang et al., [ | RCS | ACCF: 20 | ACCF: 51.5 | 27:25 | 43.2 |
| ACDF: 32 | ACDF: N/A | ||||
| Burkhardt et al., [ | RCS | ACCF: 38 | ACCF: 60.3 | ACCF: 25:13 | 20.4 |
| ACDF: 80 | ACDF: 60.9 | ACDF: 41:39 | |||
| Yu et al., [ | RCS | ACCF: 48 | ACCF: 59.3 | 65:45 | 32 |
| ACDF: 62 | ACDF: N/A | ||||
| Jia et al., [ | RCS | ACCF: 36 | ACCF: 48.83 | ACCF: 21:15 | ACCF: 28.96 |
| ACDF: 31 | ACDF: 49.12 | ACDF: 17:14 | ACDF: 26.81 | ||
| Kim et al., [ | RCS | ACCF: 16 | ACCF: 58 | ACCF: 13:3 | ACCF: 20 |
| ACDF: 54 | ACDF: 56.7 | ACDF: 31:23 | ACDF: 18.6 |
ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ACCF, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion; CSM, cervical spondylotic myelopathy; RCT, randomized controlled trials; RCS, retrospective case series; N/A, not available.
Summary of the conclusions of the review of ACCF vs ACDF in <3 level disease [10]
| Characteristic | Difference | Trials included out of 9 studies |
|---|---|---|
| Hospital Stay | No significant difference | 3 |
| Bleeding | ACDF has significantly less bleeding than ACCF | 4 |
| Operating time | ACDF has significantly shorter time than ACCF | 4 |
| JOA score | No significant difference | 3 |
| Neck VAS/arm VAS | No significant difference | 3 |
| C2–7 Cobb angle | ACCF group had a significantly lower Cobb angle than ACDF | 5 |
| Cervical and Fusion ROM | No significant difference | 2 |
| Fused segment height | ACCF had significantly lower height than ACDF | 5 |
| Fusion rate | No significant difference | 6 |
| Graft collapse | ACDF had significantly lower rate than ACDF | 2 |
| Adjacent segment degeneration | No significant difference | 3 |
| Complications | No significant difference | 8 |
ACCF, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; VAS, visual analogue scale; ROM, range of motion.
Review of the series on oblique partial corpectomies for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
| Series | No. of Patients | Outcome | Incidence of Horner syndrome | Follow-up (mo) | Sagittal canal diameter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| George et al., [ | 101 | Improved: 67% | 57% Temporary, 9% Permanent | 37 | N/A |
| Stable: 25% | |||||
| Deteriorated: 8% | |||||
| Bruneau et al., [ | > 400 | Improved: 72% | 7% Temporary, 2% Permanent | N/A | N/A |
| Stable: 28% | |||||
| Deteriorated: none | |||||
| Koç et al., [ | 26 | Myelopathy: 77% improvement | 30.7% Temporary, 7.7% Permanent | 12–24 | N/A |
| Radiculopathy: 85% relieved | |||||
| Rocchi et al., [ | 48 | Improved: 85% | 29.16% Temporary, 2% Permanent | 24 | N/A |
| Stable: 10% | |||||
| Deteriorated: 4% | |||||
| Chacko et al., [ | 109 | Improved: 73% | 32.1% Temporary, 8.2% Permanent | 30.52 ± 19.71 | N/A |
| Kiris et al., [ | 40 | Improved: 62.5% | 25% Temporary, 10% Permanent | 59 | Mean diameter increased from 5.8 to 13.9 mm |
| Stable: 25% | |||||
| Deteriorated: 12.5% | |||||
| Chacko et al., [ | 153 | Improved: 72.8% | 21.1% Temporary, 5.9% Permanent | 36 | N/A |
| Stable: 24.4% | |||||
| Deteriorated: 3.2% | |||||
| Turel et al., [ | 28 | Mean reduction in Nuricks score from 3.39 to 2.11 | N/A | 36 | N/A |
| Chacko et al., [ | 3[ | Improved in all 3 | 33.3% Temporary, none permanent | 36 | N/A |
| Chibbaro et al., [ | 268 | Improved: 86.6% | 5.2% Temporary, 1.1% Permanent | 96 | Mean diameter increased by 6.5 mm from 9.7 mm (67%) |
| Stable: 8% | |||||
| Deteriorated: 5% | |||||
| Salvatore et al., [ | 499 | Recovery rate: 87.6% | 3% Temporary, 1% Permanent | 111 | N/A |
N/A, not available; OPLL, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; OALL, ossification of anterior longitudinal ligament.
OPLL with OALL.
Review of all series using anterior approaches for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in elderly
| Series | Design | No. of patients | Definition of elderly | Technique | Follow-up (mo) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nakashima et al., [ | Prospective | 479 | Elderly ≥ 65 yr (n = 119); nonelderly < 65 yr (n = 360) | ACDF, discectomy/corpectomy w/ or w/o fusion, laminoplasty, laminectomy w/ or w/o fusion | 24 |
| Chen et al., [ | Retrospective | 136 | Elderly ≥ 70 yr (n = 58); nonelderly < 70 yr (n = 78) | ACDF, posterior laminectomy+ fusion | 39.6 |
| Kanchiku et al., [ | Retrospective | 43 | Elderly ≥ 75 yr (n = 43) | ACDF, laminoplasty | 25 |
| Nagashima et al., [ | Retrospective | 113 | Group 1, 36–45 yr (n = 12); group 2, 46–55 yr (n = 22); group 3, 56–65 yr (n = 31); group 4, 76–85 yr (n = 16) | ACDF, laminoplasty | >6 |
| Lu et al., [ | Retrospective | 51 | Elderly ≥ 70 yr (n = 20); nonelderly < 69 yr (n = 31) | ACDF | 35.3 |
| Holly et al., [ | Retrospective | 70 | Elderly 75–85 yr (n = 36); nonelderly 30–64 yr (n = 34) | ACDF, laminoplasty, laminectomy+ fusion | 24 |
| Matsuda et al., [ | Retrospective | 41 | 75–81 yr (n = 17); 20–63 yr (n = 24) | ACDF, laminoplasty | N/A |
| Nagata et al., [ | Retrospective | 173 | Elderly ≥ 65 yr (n = 50); nonelderly < 65 yr (n = 123) | ACDF, laminoplasty | N/A |
ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; w/, with; w/o, without; N/A, not available.
Summary of outcomes following ACDF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy
| Study | Type of study | No. of patients | Follow-up duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nirala et al., [ | Retrospective | 69 | 54 mo | Odom criteria – excellent and good – 56/69 (81.2%) |
| Liu et al., [ | Retrospective | 69 | 26.8 mo | Preop JOA 10.8 improved to follow-up JOA 14.1 |
| Liu et al., [ | Retrospective | 103 | 3.6 yr | Preop JOA 10.2 improved to follow-up JOA 14.8 |
| Lin et al., [ | Retrospective | 57 | 24 mo | Preop JOA 9.25 improved to follow-up JOA 13.86 |
| Odom’s criteria – excellent and good – 45/57 (79%) | ||||
| Pumberger et al., [ | Retrospective | 203 | 15.44 mo | 41.4% not improved (98/203 patients were in Nurick grade 1 preoperation) |
| Wen et al., [ | Meta-analysis (5 studies) | 199 | N/A | JOA recovery rate – median 62 (range, 56.7–90.8) |
| Wang et al., [ | Meta-analysis (7 studies) | 452 | 24–87.3 mo; median, 24 mo | Preop JOA median 9.26 (range, 7.5–11.1) improved to follow-up JOA median 13.9 (range,13.48–14.8) |
ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Preop, preoperative; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; N/A, not available.
Summary of outcomes of ACCF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy
| Study | Type of study (ACCF unless otherwise mentioned) | No. of patients | Mean follow-up duration | Improved | Worse | Functional grade change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emery et al., [ | Retrospective | 55 | 4.5 yr | 82%[ | 6% | N/A |
| Guo et al., [ | Retrospective (hybrid) | 53 | 37.3 mo | N/A | N/A | JOA preoperative mean 8.1 improved to follow-up mean 13.1 |
| Gao et al., [ | Retrospective | 145 (158 patients lost to follow-up) | 8.5 yr | 73.8% | 22.8% | Mean JOA improvement was 3.8±1.3 |
| JOA recovery rate was 62.5%. | ||||||
| Lin et al., [ | Retrospective (skip corpectomy) | 63 | 24 mo | 69.8% (Excellent and good outcome, Odom criteria) | N/A | JOA preoperative mean 8.86 improved to follow-up mean 13.27 |
| Liu et al., [ | Retrospective | 87 | 3.6 yr | N/A | N/A | JOA preoperative mean 10.7 improved to follow-up mean 14.5 |
| Liu et al., [ | Retrospective (hybrid) | 96 | 3.6 yr | N/A | N/A | JOA preoperative mean 11.3 improved to follow-up mean 13.9 |
| Sarkar and Rajshekhar [ | Retrospective | 352 (130 patients lost to follow-up) | 57.1 mo | 72.4% (35.8% “cured”) | 3.5% | Mean Nurick grade improved from preoperative 3.2 ± 0.1 to follow-up 1.9 ± 0.1 |
| Wen et al., [ | Meta-analysis (5 studies) | 185 | N/A | N/A | N/A | JOA recovery rate median 60.1 (range, 54.2–143.6) |
| Wang et al., [ | Meta-analysis (7 studies) | 452 | Median 24 mo (range, 26.4–94.3 mo) | N/A | N/A | JOA preoperative median 9.18 (range, 7.4–11.4) and follow-up median 13.6 (range, 13–14.5) |
ACCF, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion; N/A, not available; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
Improvement rates for both ACDF and ACCF were reported together and not separately.
Summary of outcomes in oblique corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM)
| Study | Type of study | No. of patients | Mean follow-up duration | Functional improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chibbaro et al., [ | Retrospective | 268 | 96 mo | 86.6% improved; 5% worse |
| Chacko et al., [ | Retrospective | 109 | 30.5 mo | Nurick grade improved from preoperative mean of 3.6 to follow-up mean of 2.5 |
| JOA improved from preoperative mean of 11.4 to follow-up mean of 14.2 | ||||
| Tykocki et al., [ | Review | N/A | N/A | > 70% for CSM/OPLL |
N/A, not available; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; OPLL, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.
Review included patients with radiculopathy, tumors etc.
Outcomes in ACDF versus ACCF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM)
| Study | Type of study | No. of patients | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Han et al., [ | Systematic review and metaanalysis (15 studies, non-RCT) | 1,372 | ACDF better lordosis and less complications and blood loss; Odom’s criteria, JOA, VAS, NDI equal, surgery time same |
| Wen et al., [ | Meta-analysis (15 studies, non-RCT) | 1,368 | Same outcome; ACDF has less blood loss and complications |
| Lau et al., [ | Retrospective | 55 | ACDF less blood loss and complications (not significant); Other outcomes same |
| Liu et al., [ | Meta-analysis (hybrid vs. ACCF) (5 controlled trials) | 356 | Both hybrid surgery and ACCF give the same functional outcomes but blood loss and complications were less with hybrid surgery and fusion rate was better |
| Wang et al., [ | Meta-analysis (8 studies, retrospective) | 878 | ACDF better for complications, blood loss, lordosis and fusion rate; hospital stay, surgery time, JOA, NDI, dysphagia, hoarseness, graft extrusion, infection, pseudoarthrosis were same |
| Li et al., [ | Retrospective (4 level CSM) | 70 | Same outcome; ACDF better lordosis, less complication |
ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ACCF, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion; RCT, randomized controlled trials; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores; VAS, visual analogue scale; NDI, Neck Disability Index.