Comparison of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion and Posterior Laminoplasty for Four-Segment Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

 Although anterior or posterior surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) has been extensively studied, the choice of anterior or posterior approach in four-segment CSM remains poorly studied and controversial. We compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of four-segment CSM by posterior laminoplasty (LAMP) and anterior cervical decompression fusion (ACDF) to further explore the merits and demerits of ACDF and LAMP for four-segment CSM in this study.

METHODS

 Patients with four-segment CSM who underwent ACDF or LAMP between January 2016 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. We compared the preoperative and postoperative cervical Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), neck pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, sagittal vertical axis, cervical lordosis (CL), and range of motion.

RESULTS

 There were 47 and 79 patients in the ACDF and LAMP groups, respectively. Patients in the ACDF group had a significantly longer surgical time and lower estimated blood loss and length of stay than those in the LAMP group. There was no significant difference in the JOA, NDI, or neck pain VAS scores between the two groups preoperatively, but the NDI and neck pain VAS scores in the ACDF group were significantly lower than those in the LAMP group at the final follow-up. The preoperative C2-C7 Cobb angle of the ACDF group was significantly lower than that of the LAMP group but there was no significant difference between the two groups postoperatively. The improvement of C2-C7 Cobb angle (∆C2-C7 Cobb angle) in the ACDF group was significantly higher than that in the LAMP group. This indicated that ACDF can improve CL better than LAMP. The linear regression analysis revealed the ∆C2-C7 Cobb angle was negatively correlated with the final follow-up neck pain VAS scores and NDI. This indicated that patients with better improvement of CL may have a better prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

 Although both ACDF and LAMP surgeries are effective for four-segment CSM, ACDF can better improve CL and neck pain. For patients with poor CL, we suggest ACDF when both approaches are feasible.

Developing Mixed-effects Models to Optimize Prediction of Postoperative Outcomes in a Modern Sample of Over 450,000 Patients Undergoing Elective Cervical Spine Fusion Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

We utilize big data and modeling techniques to create optimized comorbidity indices for predicting postoperative outcomes following cervical spine fusion surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical spine decompression and fusion surgery are commonly used to treat degenerative cervical spine pathologies. However, there is a paucity of high-quality data defining the optimal comorbidity indices specifically in patients undergoing cervical spine fusion surgery.

METHODS

Using data from 2016 to 2019, we queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) to identify individuals who had received cervical spine fusion surgery. The Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (JHACG) frailty-defining indicator was used to assess frailty. To measure the level of comorbidity, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) scores were queried. Receiver operating characteristic curves were developed utilizing comorbidity indices as predictor variables for pertinent complications such as mortality, nonroutine discharge, top-quartile cost, top-quartile length of stay, and 1-year readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 453,717 patients were eligible. Nonroutine discharges occurred in 93,961 (20.7%) patients. The mean adjusted all-payer cost for the procedure was $22,573.14±18,274.86 (top quartile: $26,775.80) and the mean length of stay was 2.7±4.4 days (top quartile: 4.7 d). There were 703 (0.15%) mortalities and 58,254 (12.8%) readmissions within 1 year postoperatively. Models using frailty+ECI as primary predictors consistently outperformed the ECI-only model with statistically significant P -values for most of the complications assessed. Cost and mortality were the only outcomes for which this was not the case, as frailty outperformed both ECI and frailty+ECI in cost ( P <0.0001 for all) and frailty+ECI performed as well as ECI alone in mortality ( P =0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that frailty+ECI may most accurately predict clinical outcomes in patients receiving cervical spine fusion surgery. These models may be used to identify high-risk populations and patients who may necessitate greater resource utilization following elective cervical spinal fusion.

Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Cervical myelopathy (CM) describes the compressive cervical spinal cord state, often accompanied by serious clinical condition, by herniated disc or hypertrophied spurs or ligament. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been frequently employed as conventional surgical solution for this CM despite its inherent biomechanical handicap. Alternatively, an artificial disc replacement (ADR) preserves cervical motion while still decompressing the spinal canal and neural foramen. This analysis elaborated to clarify the potential benefits of ADR application to CM over ACDF from the conglomerated results of the past references.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane review, and KMbase databases from the studies published until March 2023. Six studies (3 randomized controlled study [RCTs] and 3 non-RCTs) were included in a qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Data were extracted and analyzed using a random effects model to obtain effect size and its statistical significance. Quality assessment and evidence level were established in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.

RESULTS

Among 6 studies, 2 studies showed that ADR group achieved significantly better clinical improvement than the ACDF group, while the rest 4 studies revealed no significant difference. A meta-analysis showed better clinical outcomes with or without statistical significance. The level of evidence was low because of inconsistency and imprecision.

CONCLUSION

ADR was superior or at least, not inferior to ACDF in terms of functional recovery. However, its application to the CM patients is merely empowered with weak strength due to low level of evidence.

Nationwide sample data analysis of additional surgery rate after anterior or posterior cervical spinal surgery

Surgical outcomes of degenerative cervical spinal disease are dependent on the selection of surgical techniques. Although a standardized decision cannot be made in an actual clinical setting, continued education is provided to standardize the medical practice among surgeons. Therefore, it is necessary to supervise and regularly update overall surgical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the rate of additional surgery between anterior and posterior surgeries for degenerative cervical spinal disease using the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC) nationwide patient database. The NHIS-NSC is a population-based cohort with about a million participants. This retrospective cohort study included 741 adult patients (> 18 years) who underwent their first cervical spinal surgery for degenerative cervical spinal disease. The median follow-up period was 7.3 years. An event was defined as the registration of any type of cervical spinal surgery during the follow-up period. Event-free survival analysis was used for outcome analysis, and the following factors were used as covariates for adjustment: location of disease, sex, age, type of insurance, disability, type of hospital, Charles comorbidity Index, and osteoporosis. Anterior cervical surgery was selected for 75.0% of the patients, and posterior cervical surgery for the remaining 25.0%. Cervical radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis, hard disc, or soft disc was the primary diagnosis in 78.0% of the patients, and central spinal stenosis was the primary diagnosis in 22.0% of them. Additional surgery was performed for 5.0% of the patients after anterior cervical surgery and 6.5% of the patients after posterior cervical surgery (adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.74). The rates of additional surgery were not different between anterior and posterior cervical surgeries. The results would be helpful in evaluating current practice as a whole and adjusting the health insurance policy.

Comparison of intraoperative neuromonitoring accuracies and procedures associated with alarms in anterior versus posterior fusion for cervical spinal disorders: A prospective multi-institutional cohort study

A prospective multicenter cohort study. To clarify the differences in the accuracy of transcranial motor-evoked potentials (TcE-MEPs) and procedures associated with the alarms between cervical anterior spinal fusion (ASF) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF). Neurological complications after TcE-MEP alarms have been prevented by appropriate interventions for cervical degenerative disorders. The differences in the accuracy of TcE-MEPs and the timing of alarms between cervical ASF and PSF noted in the existing literature remain unclear. Patients (n = 415) who underwent cervical ASF (n = 171) or PSF (n = 244) at multiple institutions for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, spinal injury, and others were analyzed. Neurological complications, TcE-MEP alarms defined as a decreased amplitude of ≤70% compared to the control waveform, interventions after alarms, and TcE-MEP results were compared between the 2 surgeries. The incidence of neurological complications was 1.2% in the ASF group and 2.0% in the PSF group, with no significant intergroup differences (P-value was .493). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and rate of rescue were 50.0%, 95.2%, 99.4%, and 1.8%, respectively, in the ASF group, and 80.0%, 90.9%, 99.5%, and 2.9%, respectively, in the PSF group. The accuracy of TcE-MEPs was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P-value was .427 in sensitivity, .109 in specificity, and .674 in negative predictive value). The procedures associated with the alarms were decompression in 3 cases and distraction in 1 patient in the ASF group. The PSF group showed Tc-MEPs decreased during decompression, mounting rods, turning positions, and others. Most alarms went off during decompression in ASF, whereas various stages of the surgical procedures were associated with the alarms in PSF. There were no significant differences in the accuracy of TcE-MEPs between the 2 surgeries.

Cervical alignment and clinical outcome of anterior decompression with fusion vs. posterior decompression with fixation in kyphotic cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Background context

Cervical kyphosis is a common but potentially debilitating and challenging condition. There is controversy on the optimal surgical strategy for the treatment of kyphotic cervical spondylotic myelopathy (KCSM) using either anterior approach or posterior approach.

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the surgical efficacy of anterior decompression with fusion (ADF) vs. posterior decompression with fixation (PDF) for the treatment of KCSM, and to further analyze the changes of cervical spinal alignment parameters and axial symptoms (AS) severity after kyphotic correction.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 117 patients with KCSM who had undergone ADF (58 patients) and PDF (59 patients) between January 2016 and December 2020. Cervical spinal alignment parameters, including curvature index (CI) and C2-7 Cobb angle, were measured on the PreOP and PostOP lateral radiographs. Recovery rate was calculated based on the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. AS severity was quantified by Neck Disability Index (NDI). A P-value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results

The patient mean age, gender, presenting symptoms and follow-up time were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, there were statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) between the two groups regarding the operation levels, operating time and intraoperative blood loss. Analysis of PostOP follow-up data showed significant differences (P < 0.001) in CI, correction of CI, C2-7 Cobb angle, and NDI between the two groups, whereas no significant differences in JOA score (P = 0.16) and recovery rate (P = 0.14). There were significant differences (P < 0.001) in CI, C2-7 Cobb angle, JOA score, and NDI between PreOP and PostOP follow-up in each group. Correction of CI showed positive correlation with recovery of NDI in Group ADF (r = 0.51, P < 0.001), and in Group PDF (r = 0.45, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Satisfied neurological improvement was obtained by ADF and PDF for patients with KCSM. Cervical kyphotic correction caused significant improvement of AS, and was more favorable with ADF than with PDF. Surgeons should pay full consideration of the merits and shortcomings of each approach when deciding on a surgical plan.

Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial disc replacement for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has long been regarded as a gold standard in the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Subsequently, cervical artificial disc replacement (c-ADR) was developed and provides the advantage of motion preservation at the level of the intervertebral disc surgical site, which may also reduce stress at adjacent levels. The goal of this study was to compare clinical and functional outcomes in patients undergoing ACDF with those in patients undergoing c-ADR for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed using the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from database inception to November 21, 2021. The authors compared Neck Disability Index (NDI), SF-36, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores; complication rates; and reoperation rates for these two surgical procedures in CSM patients. The Mantel-Haenszel method and variance-weighted means were used to analyze outcomes after identifying articles that met study inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

More surgical time was consumed in the c-ADR surgery (p = 0.04). Shorter hospital stays were noted in patients who had undergone c-ADR (p = 0.04). Patients who had undergone c-ADR tended to have better NDI scores (p = 0.02) and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001). Comparable outcomes in terms of JOA scores (p = 0.24) and neurological success rate (p = 0.12) were noted after the surgery. There was no significant between-group difference in the overall complication rates (c-ADR: 18% vs ACDF: 25%, p = 0.17). However, patients in the ACDF group had a higher reoperation rate than patients in the c-ADR group (4.6% vs 1.5%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

At the midterm follow-up after treatment of CSM, better functional outcomes as reflected by NDI and SF-36 scores were noted in the c-ADR group than those in the ACDF group. c-ADR had the advantage of retaining range of motion at the level of the intervertebral disc surgical site without causing more complications. A large sample size with long-term follow-up studies may be required to confirm these findings in the future.

Biomechanical analysis of laminectomy, laminoplasty, posterior decompression with instrumented fusion, and anterior decompression with fusion for the kyphotic cervical spine

PURPOSE

Anterior and posterior decompressions for cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy may lead to clinical improvements. However, patients with kyphotic cervical alignment have sometimes shown poor clinical outcomes with posterior decompression. There is a lack on report of mechanical analysis of the decompression procedures for kyphotic cervical alignment.

METHODS

This study employed a three-dimensional finite element (FE) model of the cervical spine (C2-C7) with the pre-operative kyphotic alignment (Pre-OK) model and compared the biomechanical parameters (range of motion (ROM), annular stresses, nucleus stresses, and facet contact forces) for four decompression procedures at two levels (C3-C5); laminectomy (LN), laminoplasty (LP), posterior decompression with fusion (PDF), and anterior decompression with fusion (ADF). Pure moment with compressive follower load was applied to these models.

RESULTS

PDF and ADF models' global ROM were 40% at C2-C7 less than the Pre-OK, LN, and LP models. The annular and nucleus stresses decreased more than 10% at the surgery levels for ADF, and PDF, compared to the Pre-OK, LN, and LP models. However, the annular stresses at the adjacent cranial level (C2-C3) of ADF were 20% higher. The nucleus stresses of the caudal adjacent level (C5-C6) of PDF were 20% higher, compared to other models. The PDF and ADF models showed a less than 70% decrease in the facet forces at the surgery levels, compared to the Pre-OK, LN, and LP models.

CONCLUSION

The study concluded that posterior decompression, such as LN or LP, increases ROM, disc stress, and facet force and thus can lead to instability. Although there is the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD), PDF and ADF can stabilize the cervical spine even for kyphotic alignments.