Is there a difference between simultaneous or staged decompressions for combined cervical and lumbar stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated 43 patients diagnosed with tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) from 1999 to 2005 in an academic hospital. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after simultaneous decompression of the cervical and lumbar spine versus staged operations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TSS is a rare degenerative disease affecting multiple spinal levels with limited research describing operative management. METHODS: Of our patients, 21 underwent simultaneous decompression of both the cervical and lumbar spine and 22 underwent staged decompression of the cervical spine followed by the lumbar spine at a later date. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, type and duration of symptoms, operative time, combined blood loss, cervical myelopathy modified Japan Orthopaedic Association Score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), major and minor complications, and average length of follow up. Each category was evaluated by Pearson correlations and unpaired Student t tests. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 7 years, both groups improved in JOA and ODI without a significant difference between the 2 operative groups in terms of major or minor complications, JOA, or ODI. Independent of the surgical algorithm, age above 68 years, estimated blood loss ≥400 mL, and operative time ≥150 minutes significantly increased the number of complications. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that TSS can be effectively managed by either surgical intervention, simultaneous, or staged decompressions. However, patient age, blood loss, and operative time do significantly impact outcomes. Therefore, operative management should be tailored to the patient's age and the option which will limit blood loss and operative time, whether that is by simultaneous or staged procedures.

The association between preoperative spinal cord rotation and postoperative C5 nerve palsy.

BACKGROUND: C5 nerve palsy is a known complication of cervical spine surgery. The development and etiology of this complication are not completely understood. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether rotation of the cervical spinal cord predicts the development of a C5 palsy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected spine registry data as well as magnetic resonance images. We reviewed the records for 176 patients with degenerative disorders of the cervical spine who underwent anterior cervical decompression or corpectomy within the C4 to C6 levels. Our measurements included area for the spinal cord, space available for the cord, and rotation of the cord with respect to the vertebral body. RESULTS: There was a 6.8% prevalence of postoperative C5 nerve palsy as defined by deltoid motor strength of ≤ 3 of 5. The average rotation of the spinal cord (and standard deviation) was 2.8° ± 3.0°. A significant association was detected between the degree of rotation (0° to 5° versus 6° to 10° versus ≥ 11°) and palsy (point-biserial correlation = 0.94; p < 0.001). A diagnostic criterion of 6° of rotation could identify patients who had a C5 palsy (sensitivity = 1.00 [95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.00], specificity = 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 0.99], positive predictive value = 0.71 [95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.89], negative predictive value = 1.00 [95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.00]). CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence suggests that spinal cord rotation is a strong and significant predictor of C5 palsy postoperatively. Patients can be classified into three types, with Type 1 representing mild rotation (0° to 5°), Type 2 representing moderate rotation (6° to 10°), and Type 3 representing severe rotation (≥ 11°). The rate of C5 palsy was zero of 159 in the Type-1 group, eight of thirteen in the Type-2 group, and four of four in the Type-3 group. This information may be valuable for surgeons and patients considering anterior surgery in the C4 to C6 levels.