| Literature DB >> 31695394 |
ShaoQing Li1, BaoYang Zhang2, Yong Shen2, ZhanYong Wu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for poor outcome in patients who underwent multi-segmental anterior surgery, and analyze postoperative complications.Entities:
Keywords: complication; heterotopic ossification; hybrid approach; kyphotic; multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31695394 PMCID: PMC6717722 DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S208991
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag ISSN: 1176-6336 Impact factor: 2.423
Figure 1The multilevel compression of spinal cord with heterotopic ossification on CT (A, B) and ISI of spinal cord on MRI (C, D). The kyphotic alignment with C2–7 Cobb =29 angle (E) and three-levels ACDF were performed at final follow-up (F).
Demographic characteristics of the good and poor outcome groups
| Variable | Good (n=105) | Poor (n=53) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58.4±8.1 | 63.4±8.8 | 0.001 |
| Female gender (n, %) | 47(44.8%) | 28(52.8%) | 0.338 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.3±3.3 | 24.6±4.2 | 0.709 |
| Diabetes mellitus (n, %) | 19(18.1%) | 11(20.8%) | 0.687 |
| Duration of symptoms (months) | 15.4±7.6 | 21.8±11.9 | <0.001 |
| AODC (mm) | 16.7±3.2 | 17.2±2.4 | 0.369 |
| JOA score | |||
| Preoperative | 8.1±1.7 | 7.8±2.3 | 0.222 |
| Last follow-up | 14.3±1.1 | 11.3±1.5 | <0.001 |
| Recovery rate (%) | 68.9±11.1 | 34.0±8.5 | <0.001 |
| C2–7 Cobb (°) | |||
| Preoperative | 18.6±6.8 | 19.7±5.2 | 0.315 |
| Last follow-up | −7.4±5.8 | 4.4±6.3 | <0.001 |
| Last follow-up cervical ROM (°) | 19.8±5.9 | 18.8±6.3 | 0.418 |
| Preoperative T1 slope angle (°) | 16.6±3.6 | 17.4±3.8 | 0.199 |
| CSF leakage (n, %) | 8 (7.6%) | 3 (5.7%) | 0.648 |
| Surgical approach | <0.001 | ||
| m-ACDF | 46 (43.8%) | 14 (26.4%) | |
| Hybrid (ACDF+ACCF) | 49 (46.7%) | 17 (32.1%) | |
| 2-level ACCF | 10 (9.5%) | 22 (41.5%) | |
| Grade of ISI on MRI (n, %) | 0.006 | ||
| 0 or 1 | 52 (49.5%) | 14 (26.4%) | |
| 2 | 53 (50.5%) | 39 (73.6%) |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; AODC, anteroposterior diameter of spinal canal; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; ROM, range of motion; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; ISI, increased signal intensity; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ACCF, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion.
Multiple logistic regression analysis forecasted risk factors for poor outcome
| Variable | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.12 (1.041–1.207) | 0.003 |
| Duration of symptoms | 1.07 (1.007–1.128) | 0.028 |
| C2–7 Cobb (last follow-up) | 1.29 (1.184–1.408) | <0.001 |
| Surgical approach | 1.71 (0.751–3.912) | 0.201 |
| Grade of ISI | 1.623 (0.556–4.798) | 0.372 |
Abbreviation: ISI, increased signal intensity.
Sensitivity, specificity, AUC, and cutoff of risk factors for predicting poor outcome
| Variable | SN | SP | AUC | Cutoff | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.547 | 0.781 | 0.672 | 63.1 | <0.001 |
| Duration of symptoms | 0.792 | 0.524 | 0.675 | 15.5 | 0.001 |
| C2–7 Cobb (last follow-up) | 0.698 | 0.903 | 0.889 | 5.3 | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; SN, sensitivity; SP, specificity.
Figure 2Age, duration of symptoms, and C2–7 Cobb at final follow-up were drawn by ROC (A, B and C, respectively). A histogram demonstrates the postoperative complications of the three types of surgery (D).
Summary of characteristics of patients in three groups (ACDF, hybrid, and ACCF)
| ACDF group | Hybrid group | ACCF group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blood loss (mL)c | 172.3±47.5* # | 226.6±57.5 | 249.7±62.3 |
| Fusion rates after 3 months of surgeryb | 58 (97%) | 61 (92%) | 27 (84%) |
| Follow-up time (months)a | 23.7±8.6 | 19.5±7.3 | 22.1±7.8 |
| C2–7 Cobb (°) | |||
| Preoperativea | 19.6±7.2 | 18.6±6.0 | 18.5±4.9 |
| Last follow-upc | −5.6±7.0 | −5.3±7.2 | 4.5±7.2# & |
| Correction degreea | 25.2±6.6 | 24±6.2 | 14±6.1# & |
| Recovery rate of JOA score (%)c | 61.3±16.6 | 62.2±16.5 | 51.8±17.2# & |
| Graft dislodgment or subsidence | 0 | 5 (7.6%) | 6 (18.8%)# & |
| Dysphagia | 9 (15%)* # | 4 (6%) | 2 (6.3%) |
| C5 palsy | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.5%) | 3 (9.4%)# & |
| CSF leakage | 7 (11.7%)* # | 3 (4.5%) | 1 (3.1%) |
Notes: aIndependent t-test; bχ2 test; cMann–Whitney U-test. *Significant difference between ACDF group and hybrid group (P<0.05); #significant difference between ACCF group and ACDF group (P<0.05); &significant difference between ACCF group and hybrid group (P<0.05).
Abbreviations: JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid.