Literature DB >> 34217257

Clinical impact and imaging results after a modified procedure of ACDF: a prospective case-controlled study based on ninety cases with two-year follow-up.

Shunmin Wang1, Jian Zhu2, Kaiqiang Sun2, Rongzi Chen1, Aigang Liu1, Jie Cao1, Ruijin You1, Feng Zhao3, Jiangang Shi4.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: This is a prospective case-controlled study.
BACKGROUND: To analyze the postoperative axial pain and cage subsidence of patients presenting with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) after a modified procedure of ACDF (mACDF).
METHODS: Ninety patients with CSM were prospectively collected from 2014 to 2018. The patients were divided into spread group and non-spread group (48:42 ratio) according to the cage placement with or without releasing the Caspar cervical retractor after decompression. Spread group received conventional ACDF and non-spread group received mACDF. Patients were followed-up for at least 24 months after surgery. Radiologic data, including height of intervertebral space and Cobb Angle, were collected. Nervous system function was obtained using JOA scores, and level of pain was assessed using VAS scores.
RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were enrolled and the patients were divided into spread group (n = 48) and none-spread group(n = 42). Cage subsidence of (spread group vs none-spread group) was (0.82 ± 0.68 vs 0.58 ± 0.81) mm, (0.64 ± 0.77 vs 0.34 ± 0.46) mm, (0.48 ± 0.43 vs 0.25 ± 0.28) mm, and (0.45 ± 0.47 vs 0.17 ± 0.32) mm at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months, respectively. The period exhibiting the most decrease of the height of intervertebral space was 3 months postoperatively. However, there was no statistical difference in the height of intervertebral space, JOA or VAS scores at the final follow-up between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The mACDF can avoid excessive distraction by releasing the Caspar Cervical retractor, restore the "natural height" of cervical vertebra, relieve immediate pain after surgery, and prevent rapid Cage subsidence and the loss of cervical curvature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Axial pain; Cage subsidence; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Modified ACDF; Natural height

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34217257     DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04229-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord        ISSN: 1471-2474            Impact factor:   2.362


  34 in total

1.  The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion.

Authors:  G W SMITH; R A ROBINSON
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1958-06       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Risk factors for development of myelopathy in patients with cervical spondylotic cord compression.

Authors:  Shunji Matsunaga; Setsuro Komiya; Yoshiaki Toyama
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Comparison of anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Jiaquan Luo; Kai Cao; Sheng Huang; Liangping Li; Ting Yu; Cong Cao; Rui Zhong; Ming Gong; Zhiyu Zhou; Xuenong Zou
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Incidence of Subsidence of Seven Intervertebral Devices in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jietao Xu; Yi He; Yawei Li; Guo-Hua Lv; Yu-Liang Dai; Bin Jiang; Zhenzhong Zheng; Bing Wang
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 2.104

5.  Two-level corpectomy versus three-level discectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparison of perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Darryl Lau; Dean Chou; Praveen V Mummaneni
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2015-06-19

6.  The role of distraction in improving the space available for the cord in cervical spondylosis.

Authors:  J C Bayley; J U Yoo; D M Kruger; J Schlegel
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients.

Authors:  H H Bohlman; S E Emery; D B Goodfellow; P K Jones
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Comparison of Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament Versus Other Forms of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Results from the Prospective, Multicenter AOSpine CSM-International Study of 479 Patients.

Authors:  Hiroaki Nakashima; Lindsay Tetreault; Narihito Nagoshi; Aria Nouri; Paul Arnold; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Tomoaki Toyone; Masato Tanaka; Qiang Zhou; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 9.  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Michel Toledano; J D Bartleson
Journal:  Neurol Clin       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.806

10.  Robinson anterior cervical fusion comparison of the standard and modified techniques.

Authors:  S E Emery; M J Bolesta; M A Banks; P K Jones
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.