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

Comparison of anterior cervical diskectomy with fusion (ACDF) and laminoplasty treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy with developmental canal stenosis: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical effectiveness and radiologic results of anterior cervical diskectomy with fusion (ACDF) comparing with laminoplasty (LP) in treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) with developmental canal stenosis (DCS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 41 patients who had MCSM with DCS treated with ACDF or LP from December 2018 to April 2023. Patients were split into ACDF and LP groups for comparison, and patients were further separated into subgroups based on whether or not a reserving canal space was present. The operation time, hemoglobin, hospital stay, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) score were used to assess clinical efficacy. The C2-C7 Cobb angle, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis, T1 slope, and cervical range of motion were applied to evaluate imaging changes.

RESULTS

Of the 41 patients, 19 received ACDF, and 22 received LP. At the final follow-up, both groups' mJOA scores significantly improved, and the intercomparison showed no differences; the VAS score was much lower in the ACDF group but remained unchanged in the LP group. At the final follow-up, the C2-C7 Cobb angle and T1 slope had significantly increased in the ACDF group, while the LP group showed no change; the cervical range of motion had significantly decreased in both groups, with the ACDF group exhibiting a more marked reduction. Within the ACDF subgroup, there was no postoperative symptom improvement for those with reserving space, whereas there was postoperative symptom resolution for those with non-reserving space; however, postoperative symptom in the LP subgroup was resolved.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ACDF and LP were efficacious for MCSM patients with DCS. While ACDF could improve cervical lordosis and alleviate neck pain more effectively, it can also result in cervical sagittal imbalance and decreased mobility. Furthermore, the recovery from LP was superior to that from ACDF for patients with reserving space. In contrast, the recovery from both decompression techniques was comparable for individuals in non-reserving space.

Zero-profile anchored spacer versus conventional plate-cage construct in bilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Zero-profile anchored spacers (ZAS) and plate-cage constructs (PCC) are currently employed when performing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of both devices in bilevel ACDF remain controversial. The goal of our meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy and security among ZAS and PCC in bilevel ACDF.

METHODS

A search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify researches that compared ZAS with PCC for bilevel ACDF. Stata MP 17.0 software was used for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nine researches with a total of 580 patients were involved. In comparison to PCC, ZAS significantly reduced intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia rates. No significant differences were found concerning operation time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, the incidence of adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD) and implant sinking rates at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Compared to PCC, ZAS achieved similar efficacy and security in bilevel ACDF with respect to operative time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, implant sinking rates and ASD rates at final follow-up. It is worth noting that ZAS offered considerable benefits over conventional PCC for the reduction of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia. Therefore, for patients requiring bilevel ACDF, ZAS seems superior to PCC. Given the limitations of our study, larger prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to establish reliable proof to consolidate our conclusions.