Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone anchored cages versus posterior laminectomy and fusion for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

The optimal treatment for multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) remains controversial. Posterior approach is most commonly used, but complicated with insufficient decompression and postoperative axial neck pain. The anterior approach is effective in neural decompression with less surgical trauma. However, the profile of the plate or the possible construct failure may cause dysphagia after surgery. Recently, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with self-anchored cage is reported to have a superior result over ACDF with anterior plates and screws in three-level CSM. The purpose of the study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of ACDF using stand-alone anchored cages to that of laminectomy with fusion (LF) for treating four-level CSM.

Methods

Twenty-six patients underwent four-level ACDF (Group A) and 32 patients with four-level LF (Group B) were retrospectively reviewed and followed-up for 24 months. Clinical efficacy was evaluated by comparing pre- and post-operative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. Operative time, blood loss, fusion, lordosis change and complications were evaluated.

Results

There was significantly less blood loss in Group A (163.4 ± 72.1 ml) than Group B (241.0 ± 112.3 ml) (P < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in JOA and NDI scores after surgery with similar operative time. Improvements in cervical lordosis and fused segment lordosis were more pronounced in Group A (11.3 ± 5.9°, 9.7 ± 5.3°) than Group B (5.8 ± 4.6°, 5.5 ± 4.5°) (P < 0.05). Loss of lordosis in the cervical spine and fused segment was more prominent in Group A (11.7 ± 2.2°, 6.7 ± 3.2°) than Group B (7.5 ± 3.8°, 3.7 ± 3.4°) (P < 0.05) at the final follow-up. Complication rate in Group A and Group B was 57.69 and 18.75%, respectively.

Conclusions

ACDF using a stand-alone anchored cage showed similar clinical results to LF for the treatment of four-level CSM, with better lordosis correction and less blood loss. However, ACDF was associated with more loss of lordosis after surgery and more non-unions.

Lin D, Zhai W, Lian K, Kang L, Ding Z. Anterior versus posterior approach for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthopedics. 2013;36(11):e1431–6. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20131021-28 CrossRefPubMed

Shou F, Li Z, Wang H, Yan C, Liu Q, Xiao C. Prevalence of C5 nerve root palsy after cervical decompressive surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(12):2724–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4186-5CrossRefPubMed

De la Garza-Ramos R, Xu R, Ramhmdani S, Kosztowski T, Bydon M, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky J, Witham TF, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A. Long-term clinical outcomes following 3- and 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(6):885–91. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.10.SPINE15795. Erratum in: J Neurosurg Spine. 24(6):996. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.3.SPINE15795a CrossRefPubMed

Song K, Song J, Kim D, Shim DG, Lee K. Efficacy of combined anteroposterior fusion with no plate versus anterior fusion alone with cage and plate for multilevel degenerative cervical disease. Spine J. 2014;14(4):598–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.082CrossRefPubMed

Chen Y, Lü G, Wang B, Li L, Kuang L. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(7):2255–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4391-x CrossRefPubMed

Liu Y, Wang H, Li X, Chen J, Sun H, Wang G, Yang H, Jiang W. Comparison of a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with an anterior plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(6):1881–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4500-x CrossRefPubMed

Smith GW. Robinson RA (1958) the treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958;40-A(3):607–24.CrossRefPubMed

Zhou J, Li X, Dong J, Zhou X, Fang T, Lin H, Ma Y. Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(11):1505–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2011.02.045 CrossRefPubMed

Thom C, Krauss JK, Zevgaridis D. A prospective clinical comparison of rectangular titanium cages and iliac crest autografts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Neurosurg Rev Jan. 2004;27(1):34–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-003-0297-2CrossRef

10.

Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(5):513–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0539-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Woods BI, Hohl J, Lee J, Donaldson WR, Kang J. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(3):688–95. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11999-010-1653-5CrossRefPubMed

12.

Pereira EA, Chari A, Hempenstall J, Leach JC, Chandran H, Cadoux-Hudson TA. Anterior cervical discectomy plus intervertebral polyetheretherketone cage fusion over three and four levels without plating is safe and effective long-term. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(9):1250–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2012.10.028 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Seng C, Tow BPB, Siddiqui MA, Srivastava A, Wang L, Yew AKS, Yeo W, Khoo SHR, Balakrishnan NMS, Bin Abd Razak HR, Chen JLT, Guo CM, Tan SB, Yue W. Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty. Spine J. 2013;13(7):723–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.038 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Ning X, Wen Y, Xiao-Jian Y, Bin N, De-Yu C, Jian-Ru X, Lian-Shun J. Anterior cervical locking plate-related complications; prevention and treatment recommendations. Int Orthop. 2008;32(5):649–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0369-yCrossRefPubMed

15.

Liu H, Ploumis A, Li C, Yi X, Li H. Polyetheretherketone cages alone with allograft for three-level anterior cervical fusion. ISRN Neurol. 2012;2012(452703) https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/452703

16.

Chung CK, Kim CH. Anterior plating is better than the stand-alone cage in the restoration of segmental kyphosis. Spine J. 2012;12((9):S100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.08.277CrossRef

17.

Zajonz D, Franke A, von der Höh N, Voelker A, Moche M, Gulow J, Heyde C (2014) Is the radiographic subsidence of stand-alone cages associated with adverse clinical outcomes after cervical spine fusion? An observational cohort study with 2-year follow-up outcome scoring. Patient Saf Surg7;8(1):43.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-014-0043-4.

18.

Lee J, Park MS, Moon S, Shin J, Kim SW, Kim Y, Lee SJ, Suh B, Lee H. Loss of lordosis and clinical outcomes after anterior cervical fusion with dynamic rotational plates. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54(3):726–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2013.54.3.726CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Patwardhan AG, Khayatzadeh S, Nguyen N, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Muriuki MG, Carandang G, Smith ZA, Sears W, Lomasney LM, Ghanayem AJ. Is cervical sagittal imbalance a risk factor for adjacent segment Pathomechanics after multilevel fusion? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(10):E580–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001316CrossRef

20.

Gu Y, Cao P, Gao R, Tian Y, Liang L, Wang C, Yang L, Yuan W. Incidence and risk factors of C5 palsy following posterior cervical decompression: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e101933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101933CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Katsumi K, Yamazaki A, Watanabe K, Ohashi M, Shoji H (2012) Can prophylactic bilateral C4/C5 Foraminotomy prevent postoperative C5 palsy after open-door Laminoplasty? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(9):748–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182326957.

22.

Liu G, Reyes MR, Riew KD. Why does C5 palsy occur after prophylactic bilateral C4-5 foraminotomy in open-door cervical laminoplasty? A risk factor analysis.Global Spine J 7(7):696–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568217699191.

23.

Wang S, Jiang S, Jiang L, Dai L. Axial pain after posterior cervical spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(2):185–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1600-xCrossRefPubMed

24.

Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, Matsuoka T, Miyamoto S, Yonenobu K. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(13):1443–7. discussion 1448CrossRef

25.

Nakama S, Nitanai K, Oohashi Y, Endo T, Hoshino Y (2003) Cervical muscle strength after laminoplasty.J Orthop Sci. 2003;8(1):36–40.http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s007760300006.

Title: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone anchored cages versus posterior laminectomy and fusion for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2136-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone anchored cages versus posterior laminectomy and fusion for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

A systematic review of psychological interventions in total hip and knee arthroplasty

A novel MRI- and CT-based scoring system to differentiate malignant from osteoporotic vertebral fractures in Chinese patients

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections: the hip injection trial (HIT) protocol

Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?

Infection-free rates and Sequelae predict factors in bone transportation for infected tibia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The risk of violating the posterior malleolar fracture when nailing the ipsilateral concomitant spiral distal tibial fracture