Two-level cervical corpectomy-long-term follow-up reveals the high rate of material failure in patients, who received an anterior approach only.

In contrast to a one-level cervical corpectomy, a multilevel corpectomy without posterior fusion is accompanied by a high material failure rate. So far, the adequate surgical technique for patients, who receive a two-level corpectomy, remains to be elucidated. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term clinical outcome of patients with cervical myelopathy, who underwent a two-level corpectomy. Outcome parameters of 21 patients, who received a two-level cervical corpectomy, were retrospectively analyzed concerning reoperations and outcome scores (VAS, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Nurick scale, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (mJOAS), Short Form 36-item Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36)). The failure rate was determined using postoperative radiographs. The choice over the surgical procedures was exercised by every surgeon individually. Therefore, a distinction between two groups was possible: (1) anterior group (ANT group) with a two-level corpectomy and a cervical plate, (2) anterior/posterior group (A/P group) with two-level corpectomy, cervical plate, and additional posterior fusion. Both groups benefitted from surgery concerning pain, disability, and myelopathy. While all patients of the A/P group showed no postoperative instability, one third of the patients of the ANT group exhibited instability and clinical deterioration. Thus, a revision surgery with secondary posterior fusion was needed. Furthermore, the ANT group had worse myelopathy scores (mJOASANT group = 13.5 ± 2.5, mJOASA/P group = 15.7 ± 2.2). Patients with myelopathy, who receive a two-level cervical corpectomy, benefitted from surgical decompression. However, patients with a sole anterior approach demonstrated a very high rate of instability (33%) and clinical deterioration in a long-term follow-up. Therefore, we recommend to routinely perform an additional posterior fusion after two-level cervical corpectomy.

Influence of the sagittal spinal profile type on the long-term outcome of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis after microsurgical decompression.

OBJECTIVE: Microsurgical decompression for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has demonstrated long-term improvement concerning pain and function. Nonetheless, a considerable proportion of these patients do not experience satisfactory alleviation of symptoms. Previous studies have not found a direct influence of single sagittal parameters on patient outcomes. However, recent research indicates that a composite of parameters, presented in specific sagittal profile types (SPTs) that were defined by Roussouly and colleagues, may affect these outcomes. This study aims to investigate the impact of SPT on long-term outcomes of patients with LSS following microsurgical decompression. METHODS: This study is a prospective clinical observation. Patients with symptomatic LSS, who underwent microsurgical treatment and had long-term follow-up data for at least 36 months, were included. Patients with spinal deformity, fractures, or significant instability were excluded. Outcomes were measured using the numeric rating scale for pain, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey for quality of life, walking distance, Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Odom's criteria. SPT was determined in blinded fashion by using preoperative long standing radiographs. RESULTS: The initial population of this observational study consisted of 128 patients, with long-term results available for 87 individuals, including 24 patients with SPT1, 20 with SPT2, 27 with SPT3, and 16 with SPT4. The average age was 70 years, with a slight male majority (56.3%) and a mean BMI of 27.9 kg/m2. After a median follow-up of 48 months, all groups showed significant improvement in walking distance, leg pain, and disability. Overall, 75% reported satisfaction with the surgery. However, patients with SPT1, which is characterized by low sacral slope and specific spinal curvatures, experienced significantly less improvement in back pain (p = 0.018) and related disability (p = 0.030), and lower satisfaction compared to other SPT groups (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The sagittal spinal type is influencing the long-term outcome of patients suffering from symptomatic LSS. Patients with a combination of a flat sacral slope and a low overall lumbar lordosis with a high lordosis in the lower lumbar spine (i.e., spinal SPT1) showed worse outcome concerning back pain and had decreased satisfaction with surgery than comparable subjects from other SPT groups. Consequently, the authors recommend the assessment of sagittal spinal types in patients diagnosed with symptomatic spinal stenosis prior to decompression surgery. Inclusion of SPT in the preoperative consultation process can provide valuable insights, potentially guiding practitioners to more tailored patient counseling.

The sagittal spinal profile type: a principal precondition for surgical decision making in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE Microsurgical decompression (MD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) shows good clinical results. Nevertheless, 30%-40% of patients do not have a significant benefit after surgery-probably due to different anatomical preconditions. The sagittal profile types (SPTs 1-4) defined by Roussouly based on different spinopelvic parameters have been shown to influence spinal degeneration and surgical results. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the SPT on the clinical outcome in patients with LSS who were treated with MD. METHODS The authors retrospectively investigated 100 patients with LSS who received MD. The patients were subdivided into 4 groups depending on their SPT, which was determined from preoperative lateral spinal radiographs. The authors analyzed pre- and postoperative outcome scales, including the visual analog scale (VAS), walking distance, Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Odom's criteria, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey score. RESULTS Patients with SPT 1 showed a significantly worse clinical outcome concerning their postoperative back pain (VASback-SPT 1 = 5.4 ± 2.8; VASback-SPT 2 = 2.6 ± 1.9; VASback-SPT 3 = 2.9 ± 2.6; VASback-SPT 4 = 1.5 ± 2.5) and back pain-related disability. Only 43% were satisfied with their surgical results, compared with 70%-80% in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS A small pelvic incidence with reduced compensation mechanisms, a distinct lordosis in the lower lumbar spine with a high load on dorsal structures, and a long thoracolumbar kyphosis with a high axial load might lead to worse back pain after MD. Therefore, the indication for MD should be provided carefully, fusion can be considered, and other possible reasons for back pain should be thoroughly evaluated and treated.

The Sagittal Balance Does not Influence the 1 Year Clinical Outcome of Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Without Obvious Instability After Microsurgical Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study with retrospective and prospective inclusion of 100 patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the sagittal balance (SB) influences the clinical outcome of patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, who underwent microsurgical decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SB has become a critical factor for clinical decision making in the surgical treatment of spinal degenerative diseases. However, a frequently recommended sagittal realignment of elderly, multimorbid patients is accompanied by a significant rate of complications. The influence of SB on the clinical outcome of patients with degenerative spinal stenosis, who undergo decompressive surgery is not well understood. The aim of this study was to explore whether the clinical outcome of these patients is related to the SB and whether patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative sagittal imbalance necessitate restoration of the SB in addition to microsurgical decompression. METHODS: One hundred patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who received microsurgical decompression, were retrospectively identified and classified according to the severity of sagittal imbalance: (1) normal balance group, (2) minor loss of balance group, and (3) major loss of balance group. Sagittal parameters were determined from preoperative lateral spinal radiographs. As outcome parameters, we analyzed pre- and postoperative visual analogue scales for leg and back pain, walking distance, Oswestry disability index, Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, Odom's criteria, and the SF-36 score. RESULTS: All groups significantly benefited from surgery concerning leg pain, back pain, and disability in every day's life. There was no difference in patients with decompensated sagittal imbalance compared to patients with normal SB regarding life quality 6 to 24 months after microsurgical decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic degenerative spinal stenosis and excluded major instability significantly benefit from microsurgical decompression regardless of their sagittal spinal balance. Thus, restoration of the SB for patients with symptomatic degenerative spinal stenosis cannot be recommended in addition to microsurgical decompression. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.