Instrumentation Across the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Improve Patient-reported Outcomes in Multilevel Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion

What does degeneration at the cervicothoracic junction tell us? A kinematic MRI study of 93 individuals

PURPOSE

Current decision-making in multilevel cervical fusion weighs the potential to protect adjacent levels and reduce reoperation risk by crossing the cervicothoracic junction (C7/T1) against increased operative time and risk of complication. Careful planning is required, and the planned distal and adjacent levels should be assessed for degenerative disc disease (DDD). This study assessed whether DDD at the cervicothoracic junction was associated with DDD, disc height, translational motion, or angular variation in the adjacent superior (C6/C7) or inferior (T1/T2) levels.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 93 cases with kinematic MRI. Cases were randomly selected from a database with inclusion criteria being no prior spine surgery and images having sufficient quality for analysis. DDD was assessed using Pfirrmann classification. Vertebral body bone marrow lesions were assessed using Modic changes. Disc height was measured at the mid-disc in neutral and extension. Translational motion and angular variation were calculated by assessing translational or angular motion segment integrity respectively in flexion and extension. Statistical associations were assessed with scatterplots and Kendall's tau.

RESULTS

DDD at C7/T1 was positively associated with DDD at C6/C7 (tau = 0.53, p < 0.01) and T1/T2 (tau = 0.58, p < 0.01), with greater disc height in neutral position at T1/T2 (tau = 0.22, p < 0.01), and with greater disc height in extended position at C7/T1 (tau = 0.17, p = 0.04) and at T1/T2 (tau = 0.21, p < 0.01). DDD at C7/T1 was negatively associated with angular variation at C6/C7 (tau = - 0.23, p < 0.01). No association was appreciated between DDD at C7/T1 and translational motion.

CONCLUSION

The association of DDD at the cervicothoracic junction with DDD at the adjacent levels emphasizes the necessity for careful selection of the distal level in multilevel fusion in the distal cervical spine.

Is It Necessary to Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction in Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCF) is a common procedure for treating patients with multilevel degenerative cervical spine disease. The selection of lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) relative to the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of PCF construct terminating at the lower cervical spine and crossing the CTJ.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library database. Complications, rate of reoperation, surgical data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and radiographic outcomes were compared between PCF construct terminating at or above C7 (cervical group) and at or below T1 (thoracic group) in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical spine disease. A subgroup analysis based on surgical techniques and indications was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen retrospective cohort studies comprising 2071 patients (1163 in the cervical group and 908 in the thoracic group) were included. The cervical group was associated with a lower incidence of wound-related complications (RR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.022; 831 patients in cervical group vs. 692 patients in thoracic group), a lower reoperation rate for wound-related complications (RR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96, p = 0.034; 768 vs. 624 patients), and less neck pain at the final follow-up (WMD, -0.58; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.23, p = 0.001; 327 vs. 268 patients). However the cervical group also developed a higher incidence of overall adjacent segment disease (ASD, including distal ASD and proximal ASD) (RR, 1.87; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.76, p = 0.001; 1079 vs. 860 patients), distal ASD (RR, 2.18; 95% CI 1.36 to 3.51, p = 0.001; 642 vs. 555 patients), overall hardware failure (including hardware failure of LIV and hardware failure occurring at other instrumented vertebra) (RR, 1.48; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.15, p = 0.040; 614 vs. 451 patients), and hardware failure of LIV (RR, 1.89; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.95, p = 0.005; 380 vs. 339 patients). The operating time was reasonably shorter (WMD, -43.47; 95% CI -59.42 to -27.52, p < 0.001; 611 vs. 570 patients) and the estimated blood loss was lower (WMD, -143.77; 95% CI -185.90 to -101.63, p < 0.001; 721 vs. 740 patients) when the PCF construct did not cross the CTJ.

CONCLUSIONS

PCF construct crossing the CTJ was associated with a lower incidence of ASD and hardware failure but a higher incidence of wound-related complications and a small increase in qualitative neck pain, without difference in neck disability on the NDI. Based on the subgroup analysis for surgical techniques and indications, prophylactic crossing of the CTJ should be considered for patients with concurrent instability, ossification, deformity, or a combination of anterior approach surgeries as well. However, long-term follow-up outcomes and patient selection-related factors such as bone quality, frailty, and nutrition status should be addressed in further studies.

Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction: A Review of the Current Literature

ABSTRACT

The cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) is the site of transition in biomechanical, osseous, and alignment properties of the spine. The interface between the highly mobile, lordotic cervical spine and the rigid, kyphotic thoracic spine results increased the biomechanical stress experienced at this junction. The concentration of stress at this level has led to high rates of failure when instrumenting near or across the CTJ. The changes in osseous anatomy from the cervical spine to the thoracic spine present additional challenges in construct planning. For these reasons, a thorough understanding of the complexity of the cervicothoracic junction is necessary when operating near or across the CTJ. There are multiple options for cervical fixation, including lateral mass screws, pedicle screws, and laminar screws, each with its own advantages and risks. Instrumentation at C7 is controversial, and there is data supporting both its inclusion in constructs and no risk when this level is skipped. Thoracic pedicle screws are the preferred method of fixation in this region of the spine; however, the connection between cervical and thoracic screws can be challenging due to differences in alignment. Transitional rods and rod connectors mitigate some of the difficulties with this transition and have shown to be effective options. Recently, more investigation has looked into the failure of posterior cervical constructs which end at or near the CTJ. The trend in data has favored fixation to T1 or T2 rather than ending a construct at C7 due to the decreased rates of distal junction kyphosis. Although data on patient-reported outcomes with a length of constructs and the lowest instrumented vertebra is scarce, preliminary reports show no difference at this time. As posterior cervical instrumentation continues to increase in frequency, the CTJ will continue to be an area of difficulty in navigation and instrumentation. A thorough understanding of this region is necessary and continued research is needed to improve outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.