Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics

Cervical Vertebral Bone Quality Score Independently Predicts Distal Junctional Kyphosis After Posterior Cervical Fusion

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Posterior cervical fusion is the surgery of choice when fusing long segments of the cervical spine. However, because of the limited presence of this pathology, there is a paucity of data in the literature about the postoperative complications of distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). We aimed to identify and report potential associations between the preoperative cervical vertebral bone quality (C-VBQ) score and the occurrence of DJK after posterior cervical fusion.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed records of patients who underwent posterior cervical fusion at a single hospital between June 1, 2010, and May 31, 2020. Patient data were screened to include patients who were >18 years old, had baseline MRI, had baseline standing cervical X-ray, had immediate postoperative standing cervical X-ray, and had clinical and radiographic follow-ups of >1 year, including a standing cervical X-ray at least 1 year postoperatively. Univariate analysis was completed between DJK and non-DJK groups, with multivariate regression completed for relevant clinical variables. Simple linear regression was completed to analyze correlation between the C-VBQ score and total degrees of kyphosis angle change.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were identified, of whom 19 (20.4%) had DJK and 74 (79.6%) did not. The DJK group had a significantly higher C-VBQ score than the non-DJK group (2.97 ± 0.40 vs 2.26 ± 0.46; P < .001). A significant, positive correlation was found between the C-VBQ score and the total degrees of kyphosis angle change (r 2 = 0.26; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, the C-VBQ score independently predicted DJK (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.67; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

We found that the C-VBQ score was an independent predictive factor of DJK after posterior cervical fusion.

Perspective: Cervical laminoforaminotomy (CLF) is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease

Background

The literature documents that laminoforaminotomy (CLF), whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.

Methods

ACDF for lateral cervical disc disease and/or spondylosis exposes patients to multiple major surgical risk factors not encountered with CLF. These include; carotid artery or jugular vein injuries, esophageal tears, dysphagia, recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, tracheal injuries, and dysphagia. CLF also exposes patients to lower rates of vertebral artery injury, dural tears (DT)/cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, instability warranting fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), plus cord and/or nerve root injuries.

Results

Further, CLF vs. ACDF for lateral cervical pathology offer reduced tissue damage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and cost.

Conclusion

CLFs', whether performed open, minimally invasively, or microendoscopically, offer greater safety, major pros with few cons, and decreased costs vs. ACDF for lateral cervical disease.

Evaluation of Current Trends in Treatment of Single-level Cervical Radiculopathy

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this study were to identify epidemiological trends, differences, and complications in patients undergoing surgical treatment for single-level cervical radiculopathy (SLCR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SLCR that fails nonoperative management is effectively treated with either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc replacement (CDR), or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF). Although studies have shown that all 3 options are clinically effective, trends in usage, differences in patient population, and differences in complications remain unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent either ACDF, CDR, or PCF in the treatment of SLCR from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Demographic data consisted of sex, age, ASA class, body mass index, and inpatient/outpatient status. Complications included surgical site infection, pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, readmissions, reoperations, operating time, and hospital length of stay. Utilization trends by year among the 3 procedures were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1102 patients with SLCR treated with single-level ACDF, CDR, or PCF were identified in NSQIP from 2010 to 2016. There was a relative increase in the number of CDR procedures (7.7%-16.1%) and a corresponding decrease in PCF procedures (20.3%-10.6%) without a significant effect on ACDF procedures (72.0%-73.3%). Patients who underwent CDR were younger and in a lower ASA class than those undergoing ACDF or PCF. Patients undergoing PCF were more likely to be treated as an outpatient. PCF procedures also had the shortest operating time and hospital length of stay. There were no significant differences in complications among the 3 procedures. Moreover, there were no significant trends in demographics or outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF remains the most common surgical treatment for patients with SLCR, and its utilization has remained consistent. Meanwhile, the increased utilization of CDR for the treatment of SLCR has resulted in a corresponding decrease in the utilization of PCF.