Limited morbidity and possible radiographic benefit of C2 vs. subaxial cervical upper-most instrumented vertebrae

Stopping at C2 Versus C3/4 in Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: A 5-Year Follow-up Study

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

In patients undergoing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up, we sought to compare reoperation rates between patients with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The long-term outcomes of choosing between C2 versus C3/4 as the UIV in PCLF remain unclear.

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted of patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018. The primary exposure was UIV of C2 versus C3/4. The primary outcome was reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, smoking, diabetes, and fusion to the thoracic spine.

RESULTS

Of the 68 patients who underwent PCLF with 5-year follow-up, 27(39.7%) had a UIV of C2, and 41(60.3%) had a UIV of either C3/4. Groups had similar duration of symptoms (P=0.743), comorbidities (P>0.999), and rates of instrumentation to the thoracic spine (70.4% vs. 53.7%, P=0.210). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (231.8±65.9 vs. 181.6±44.1 mins, P<0.001) and more fused segments (5.9±1.8 vs. 4.2±0.9, P<0.001). Reoperation rate was lower in the C2 group compared with C3/4 (7.4% vs. 19.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance (P=0.294). Multivariable logistic regression showed increased odds of reoperation for the C3/4 group compared with the C2 group (OR=3.29, 95%CI=0.59-18.11, P=0.170), though statistical significance was not reached. Similarly, the C2 group had a lower rate of instrumentation failure (7.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.694) and adjacent segment disease/disk herniation (0% vs. 7.3%, P=0.271), though neither trend attained statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a UIV of C2 had less than half the number of reoperations and less adjacent segment disease, though neither trend was statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, whether a clinically meaningful difference exists between UIV of C2 versus C3/4 should be validated in larger samples with long-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level-3.

Does Ending a Posterior Construct Proximally at C2 Versus C3 Impact Patient Reported Outcomes in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Patients up to 24 months After the Surgery?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the impact of the upper instrumented level (UIV) being at C2 vs C3 in posterior cervical construct on patient reported outcomes (PROs) up to 24 months after surgery for cervical degenerative myelopathy (DCM). Secondary objectives were to compare operative time, intra-operative blood loss (IOBL), length of stay (LOS), adverse events (AEs) and re-operation.

METHODOLOGY

Patients who underwent a posterior cervical instrumented fusion (3 and + levels) with a C2 or C3 UIV, with 24 months follow-up were analyzed. PROs (NDI, EQ5D, SF-12 PCS/MCS, NRS arm/neck pain) were compared using ANCOVA. Operative duration, IOBL, AEs, and re-operation were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed on patient presenting with pre-operative malalignment (cervical sagittal vertical axis ≥40 mm and/or T1slope- cervical lordosis >15°).

RESULTS

173 patients were included, of which 41 (24%) had a C2 UIV and 132 (76%) a C3 UIV. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the changes in PROs up to 24 months. Subgroup analysis of patients with pre-operative malalignment showed a trend towards greater improvement in the NDI at 12 months with a C2 UIV (P = .054). Operative time, IOBL and peri-operative AEs were more in C2 group (P < .05). There was no significant difference in LOS and re-operation (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, up to 24 months after surgery for posterior cervical fusion in DCM greater than 3 levels, PROs appear to evolve similarly.

Development of Risk Stratification Predictive Models for Cervical Deformity Surgery

BACKGROUND

As corrective surgery for cervical deformity (CD) increases, so does the rate of complications and reoperations. To minimize suboptimal postoperative outcomes, it is important to develop a tool that allows for proper preoperative risk stratification.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a prognostic utility for identification of risk factors that lead to the development of major complications and unplanned reoperations.

METHODS

CD patients age 18 years or older were stratified into 2 groups based on the postoperative occurrence of a revision and/or major complication. Multivariable logistic regressions identified characteristics that were associated with revision or major complication. Decision tree analysis established cutoffs for predictive variables. Models predicting both outcomes were quantified using area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating curve characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients with CD were included in this study. By 1 year postoperatively, 26 patients experienced a major complication and 17 patients underwent a revision. Predictive modeling incorporating preoperative and surgical factors identified development of a revision to include upper instrumented vertebrae > C5, lowermost instrumented vertebrae > T7, number of unfused lordotic cervical vertebrae > 1, baseline T1 slope > 25.3°, and number of vertebral levels in maximal kyphosis > 12 (AUC: 0.82). For developing a major complication, a model included a current smoking history, osteoporosis, upper instrumented vertebrae inclination angle < 0° or > 40°, anterior diskectomies > 3, and a posterior Smith Peterson osteotomy (AUC: 0.81).

CONCLUSION

Revisions were predicted using a predominance of radiographic parameters while the occurrence of major complications relied on baseline bone health, radiographic, and surgical characteristics.

Is it Better to Stop at C2 or C3/4 in Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

(a) Compare operative variables, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with an upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4, and (b) assess outcomes based on C2 screw type.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

When performing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF), spine surgeons must choose the upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) at the subaxial cervical spine (C3/4) versus C2. Differences in long-term complications and PROs remain unknown.

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted. All patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018 were included. Patients were divided into a UIV of C2 versus C3/4. Groups were 2:1 propensity matched for fusion extending to the thoracic spine. Demographics, operative, perioperative, complications, and 1-year PRO data were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen patients underwent elective PCLF and were successfully propensity matched (39 C2 vs. 78 C3/4). Groups were similar in fusion extending to the thoracic spine (P = 0.588). Expectedly, the C2 group had more levels fused (5.63 ± 1.89) compared with the C3/4 group (4.50 ± 0.91) (P = 0.001). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), yet no differences were seen in estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.494) or length of stay (LOS) (P = 0.424). Both groups significantly improved all PROs at 1-year (EQ-5D; NRS-NP/AP; NDI). Both groups had the same percentage of surgical adverse events at 6.8% (P = 1.00). Between C2 screw type, no differences were seen in operative time, EBL, LOS, complications, or PROs.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing elective PCLF, those instrumented to C2 had only longer operative times compared with those stopping at C3/4. No differences were seen in EBL, LOS, 1-year PROs, and complications. Type of C2 screw had no impact on outcomes. Besides increased operative time, instrumenting to C2 had no detectable difference on surgical outcomes or adverse event rates.Level of Evidence: 3.

Anterior decompression through transoral axis slide and rotation osteotomy for salvage of failed posterior occipitocervical fusion: a novel technique note

Atlantoaxial dislocation could be caused by odontoid fractures or Os odontoideum. The previous surgical techniques in treatment of atlantoaxial dislocation were based on arch remove decompression or anterior atlantoaxial release and atlantoaxial (occipital-cervical) screw fixation-based reduction and fusion. However, for some clinical situations, all of above techniques cannot be applied. In this study, a patient with atlantoaxial dislocation caused by Os odontoideum treated by posterior occipitocervical fusion 20 years ago and failed. We design a novel anterior decompression through transoral axis slide and rotation osteotomy for salvage of this failed posterior occipitocervical fusion case. The C2 body and odontoid process was ventrally slide and rotation at good position after operation as well as the position of plate and screws, the spinal canal was increased significantly after operation too. We suggest this anterior decompression through transoral "C2 slide and rotation" technique is good choice for salvage of failed posterior occipitocervical fusion and some irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation because of the anterior bony fusion, it could direct decompress the spinal cord anteriorly, avoid the odontoid resection, and is feasible and safe technique.