Multi-Level Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Associated With Increased Post-operative Infection Rates and Overall Re-Operation Relative to Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion or Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

Clinical Implementation of Tissue-Sparing Posterior Cervical Fusion: Addressing Market Access Challenges

Background: The traditional open midline posterior cervical spine fusion procedure has several shortcomings. It can cause soft tissue damage, muscle atrophy, compromise of the lateral masses and painful prominent posterior cervical instrumentation or spinous process if there is dehiscence of the fascia. Additionally, patients frequently experience the rapid development of adjacent segment disease, which can result in the reemergence of debilitating pain and functional impairment. Clinical relevance: Tissue-sparing posterior cervical fusion is an alternative method for treating patients with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. However, widespread clinical adoption has been challenged by ambiguity, misunderstandings and misinterpretations regarding appropriate procedural reimbursement coding. Technological advancement: The tissue-sparing posterior cervical fusion procedure was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2018 (CORUS™ Spinal System and CAVUX® Facet Fixation System (CORUS/CAVUX); Providence™ Medical Technology). This technique addresses the concerns with traditional spine fusion methods by achieving the stability and outcomes of posterior cervical fusion without the morbidity associated with significant muscle stripping in the traditional approach. This technology uses specialized implants and instrumentation to perform all of the steps required to facilitate bone fusion and provide stability while minimizing tissue disruption. The technique involves extensive bone preparation for fusion and placement of specialized stabilization implants that span the facet joint, promoting natural bone growth and fusion while reducing the need for extensive exposure. This procedure provides an effective, less invasive solution for patients with cervical degenerative disc disease. Reimbursement and coding clarity: The article provides a comprehensive rationale for appropriate reimbursement coding for tissue-sparing posterior cervical fusion. This is a critical aspect for the adoption and accessibility of medical technologies. This information is crucial for practitioners and healthcare administrators, ensuring that innovative procedures are accurately coded and reimbursed. Procedural details and clinical evidence: By detailing the procedural steps, instruments used and the physiological basis for the procedure, this article serves as a valuable educational resource for spine surgeons and payers to appropriately code for this procedure. Conclusions: The description of work for CORUS/CAVUX is equivalent to the current surgical standard of lateral mass screw fixation with decortication and onlay posterior grafting to facilitate posterior fusion. Thus, it is recommended that CPT codes 22600/22840 be used, as they best reflect the surgical approach, instrumentation, decortication, posterior cervical fusion and bone grafting procedures.

Presentation and management of infection in total disc replacement: A review

Background

Total disc replacement (TDR) is widely used in the treatment of cervical and lumbar spine pathologies. Although TDR infection, particularly delayed infection, is uncommon, the results can be devastating, and consensus on clinical management remains elusive. In this review of the literature, we asked: (1) What are the reported rates of TDR infection; (2) What are the clinical characteristics of TDR infection; and (3) How has infection been managed for TDR patients?

Methods

We performed a search of the literature using PubMed and Embase to identify studies that reported TDR infection rates, the identification and management of TDR infection, or TDR failures with positive cultures. Twenty database studies (17 focusing on the cervical spine and 3 on the lumbar spine) and 10 case reports representing 15 patients were reviewed along with device Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data reports.

Results

We found a lack of clarity regarding how infection was diagnosed, indicating a variation in clinical approach and highlighting the need for a standard definition of TDR infection. Furthermore, while reported infection rates were low, the absence of a clear definition prevented robust data analysis and may contribute to underreporting in the literature. We found that treatment strategy and success rely on several factors including patient symptoms and time to onset, microorganism type, and implant positioning/stability.

Conclusions

Although treatment strategies varied throughout the extant literature, common practices in eliminating infection and reconstructing the spine emerged. The results will inform future work on the creation of a more robust definition of TDR infection and as well as recommendations for management.

Reoperation and Perioperative Complications After Surgical Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Comparison Between Three Procedures

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective database study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the perioperative complications and reoperation rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA), and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) in patients treated for cervical radiculopathy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical radiculopathy results from compression or irritation of nerve roots in the cervical spine. While most cervical radiculopathy is treated nonoperatively, ACDF, CDA, and PCF are the techniques most commonly used if operative intervention is indicated. There is limited research evaluating the perioperative complications of these surgical techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed using the PearlDiver Patient Record Database to identify cases of cervical radiculopathy that underwent ACDF, CDA, or PCF at one or two levels from 2007 to 2016. Perioperative complications and reoperations following each of the procedures were assessed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 25,051 patients underwent ACDF, 522 underwent CDA, and 3986 underwent PCF. After propensity score matching, each of the three groups consisted of 507 patients. Surgical site infection rates were highest after PCF (2.17%) compared with ACDF (0.20%) and CDA (0.59%) at 30 days and three months ( P =0.003, P <0.001), respectively. New-onset cervicalgia was highest following ACDF (34.32%) and lowest after PCF (22.88%) at three and six months ( P <0.001 and P =0.003), respectively. Revision surgeries were highest among those who underwent CDA (6.90%) versus ACDF (3.16%) and PCF (3.55%) at six months ( P =0.007). Limb paralysis was significantly higher after PCF compared with CDA and ACDF at six months ( P <0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of surgical site infection was higher in PCF compared with ACDF and CDA. New-onset cervicalgia was higher after ACDF compared with PCF and CDA at short-term follow-up. Revision surgeries were highest among those undergoing CDA and lowest in those undergoing ACDF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.