| Literature DB >> 33222538 |
Dong-Ho Lee1, Sehan Park2, Chul Gie Hong3, Shinseok Kim1, Jae Hwan Cho1, Chang Ju Hwang1, Jae Jun Yang2, Choon Sung Lee1.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: K-line; anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion; cervical alignment; laminoplasty; ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; vertebral body sliding osteotomy
Year: 2020 PMID: 33222538 PMCID: PMC9210231 DOI: 10.1177/2192568220975387
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Spine J ISSN: 2192-5682
Figure 1.Flow diagram of the patient selection process. OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; n. number; ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; VBSO, vertebral body sliding osteotomy; mKline, modified K-line.
Figure 2.Radiological measurements. (A) Measurement of the canal-occupying ratio. A, Thickness of ossified mass at the level of greatest canal narrowing. B, Anteroposterior diameter of the spinal canal. (B) Modified K-line (mK-line) was defined as the line connecting the midpoints of the spinal cord at C2 and C7.
Figure 3.Technical description of vertebral body sliding osteotomy. (A) Two lateral slits are made using a high-speed burr at the base of the uncinate process. (B) Anterior translation of the vertebral body with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament mass with gentle traction. (C) While holding the vertebral body in an anteriorly translated position, interbody cages are inserted. A slight distraction force was applied with a Casper pin distractor to allow control of the vertebral body position. (D) A burr is used to remove the anterior part of the translated vertebral body. (E) The anterior plate is applied for additional stability.
Patient Characteristics.
| VBSO | LMP | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 40 | 57 | |
| Follow-up (m) | 35.56 ± 12.4 | 32.6 ± 11.3 | 0.23 |
| Age | 58.6 ± 10.9 | 62.2 ± 9.9 | 0.10 |
| Sex | 0.64 | ||
| Male | 29 (72.5%) | 44 (77.2%) | |
| Female | 11 (27.5%) | 13 (28.8%) | |
| DM | 8 (20.0%) | 11 (19.3%) | 1.00 |
| HTN | 13 (32.5%) | 19 (33.3%) | 1.00 |
| Malignancy | 2 (5.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.17 |
| BMI | 25.9 ± 6.9 | 25.6 ± 2.7 | 0.70 |
| Current smokers | 7 (17.5%) | 7 (12.3%) | 0.56 |
| Operative factors | |||
| Operation time | 212.4 ± 34.7 | 157.7 ± 28.7 | <0.01* |
| Number of OPLL-involved levels | 2.6 ± 0.7 | 3.9 ± 1.3 | <0.01* |
| Canal occupying ratio (%) | 46.6 ± 11.3 | 40.6 ± 0.12 | 0.01* |
| Complications | |||
| Dural tear | 1 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0.35 |
| Neurologic deterioration | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | - |
| Infection | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.00 |
| Readmission | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.00 |
| Reoperation | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | - |
BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension; LMP, laminoplasty; m, months.
OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; VBSO, vertebral body sliding osteotomy.
Age, BMI, and operative factors were analyzed by Student’s t-test; DM, HTN, malignancy, current smokers, and complications were analyzed by the chi-square test.
* P value < 0.05.
Radiographic Results.
| VBSO | LMP | P value† | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cervical lordosis | Preoperative | |||
| Degrees | 5.7 ± 13.8 | 11.2 ± 8.0 | 0.02* | |
| Post op 12M | ||||
| Degrees | 12.0 ± 8.3 | 6.9 ± 8.5 | <0.01* | |
| Change | 6.3 ± 10.3 | -4.2 ± 7.2 | <0.01* | |
| P value‡ | <0.01* | <0.01* | ||
| Final follow-up | ||||
| Degrees | 11.6 ± 9.0 | 7.0 ± 7.4 | <0.01* | |
| Change | 5.6 ± 10.5 | -4.2 ± 7.9 | <0.01* | |
| P value‡ | <0.01* | <0.01* | ||
| Range of motion | Preoperative | |||
| Degrees | 38.5 ± 10.7 | 35.7 ± 14.2 | 0.29 | |
| Post op 12M | ||||
| Degrees | 19.9 ± 7.8 | 25.5 ± 12.2 | 0.01* | |
| Change | -18.6 ± 7.8 | -10.2 ± 9.8 | <0.01* | |
| P value‡ | <0.01* | <0.01* | ||
| Final follow-up | ||||
| Degrees | 20.2 ± 7.6 | 23.4 ± 12.2 | 0.14 | |
| Change | -18.8 ± 12.2 | -12.3 ± 10.3 | <0.01* | |
| P value‡ | <0.01* | <0.01* | ||
| INT(min) | Preoperative | |||
| Interval (mm) | 0.5 ± 2.6 | 2.6 ± 2.7 | <0.01* | |
| Post op 12M | ||||
| Interval (mm) | 6.1 ± 3.3 | 2.4 ± 2.8 | <0.01* | |
| Change | 5.6 ± 3.7 | -0.2 ± 1.4 | <0.01* | |
| P value‡ | <0.01* | <0.01* |
INT(min), minimum interval; LMP, laminoplasty; M, months; VBSO, vertebral body sliding osteotomy.
† Student’s t-test was used to compare 2 groups.
‡Paired t-test was used to compare preoperative and postoperative measurements.
* P value < 0.05.
Assessment of mK-Line Status by Group.
| Preoperative | Postoperative | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VBSO | (+) | 16 (40.0%) | (+) | 16 (40.0%) |
| (-) | 0 (0.0%) | |||
| (-) | 24 (60.0%) | (+) | 24 (60.0%) | |
| (-) | 0 (0.0%) | |||
| LMP | (+) | 51 (89.5%) | (+) | 48 (84.2%) |
| (-) | 3 (5.2%) | |||
| (-) | 6 (10.5%) | (+) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| (-) | 6 (10.5%) | |||
| P value | <0.01* | <0.01* | ||
LMP, laminoplasty; mK-line, modified kyphosis line; VBSO, vertebral body sliding osteotomy.
The chi-square test was used for analysis.
* P value < 0.05.
Comparison of JOA Score by Group.
| VBSO | LMP | P value† | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOA | Preoperative | |||
| Score | 13.4 ± 2.0 | 12.9 ± 3.1 | 0.42 | |
| Final follow-up | ||||
| Score | 15.1 ± 1.8 | 13.8 ± 1.9 | 0.02* | |
| Change | 1.7 ± 1.8 | 0.9 ± 1.3 | 0.01* | |
| P value‡ | <0.01* | <0.01* | ||
| Recovery rate (%) | 60.1 ± 38.4 | 42.4 ± 35.7 | 0.03* |
JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; LMP, laminoplasty; VBSO, vertebral body sliding osteotomy.
† Student’s t-test was used to compare 2 groups.
‡Paired t-test was used to compare preoperative and postoperative measurements.
* P value < 0.05.
Results of Logistic Regression Analysis.
| Univariate analysis | P value† |
|---|---|
| Age | 0.16 |
| Sex | 0.43 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.06* |
| Preoperative JOA score | <0.01* |
| Smoking status | 0.26 |
| Preoperative lordosis | 0.65 |
| Preoperative ROM | 0.65 |
| Number of OPLL involved segments | 0.35 |
| Canal occupying ratio | 0.89 |
| mK-line conversion from (-) to (+) | <0.01* |
| Multivariate analysis | P value‡ |
| Preoperative JOA score | 0.01* |
| BMI | 0.43 |
| mK-line conversion from (-) to (+) | <0.01* |
BMI, body mass index; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; mK-line, modified kyphosis line; OPLL, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; ROM, range of motion.
† P value < 0.10 was considered statistically significant.
‡P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 4.Transition of mK-line status in vertebral body sliding osteotomy and laminoplasty. (A) Vertebral body sliding osteotomy shifted mK-line (−) status into (+) by increasing cervical lordosis and shifting the ossified mass anteriorly. (B) mK-line (+) status changed into (−) after laminoplasty due to postoperative kyphosis.
Figure 5.Illustrative case of a 60-year-old woman who underwent vertebral body sliding osteotomy, C4, C5. (A) Preoperative lateral radiograph demonstrating kyphotic alignment. (B) At 2 years after VBSO, alignment had changed to lordosis. Translation of the vertebral body of C4 and C5 were confirmed by comparing the location of the posterior cortex of the vertebral body. (C) The mK-line status was assessed as (-) preoperatively. (D) With restoration of lordosis and anterior translation of the ossified mass, the mK-line status was assessed as (+) at 1 year after VBSO. (E) Preoperative axial CT images demonstrating canal compromise caused by OPLL with a canal-occupying ratio of 61%. (F) Successful decompression identified on an axial CT image taken at 1 year postoperatively. Solid bone union identified on coronal (G) and sagittal (H) CT images taken at 1 year postoperatively. Japanese Orthopaedic Association score improved from 12 to 16.