Adjacent Segment Pathology: Progressive Disease Course or a Product of Iatrogenic Fusion?

OBJECTIVE: Cervical spine clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP) has a reported 3% annual incidence and 26% ten-year prevalence. Its pathophysiology remains controversial, whether due to mechanical stress of a fusion segment on adjacent levels or due to patient propensity to develop progressive degenerative change. We investigate this relationship by comparing prevalence of CASP in traumatic and spondylotic patient cohorts. METHOD: A retrospective review of traumatic cervical spine fusion cases performed by the local group of neurosurgeons from 2004-2008 was completed. Surgery for CASP and presence of radiological adjacent segment pathology (RASP) were identified by telephone and electronic medical record (EMR) review, and compared to those in patients having elective cervical fusion for degenerative disease. RESULTS: There was a higher proportion of males (50/100 vs. 37/46, p0.05). Mean follow-up times were different (6.4 years in the trauma group, 7.1 years in the degenerative group; p<0.01), although this was not thought to be clinically significant. The degenerative group was found to have a significantly higher reoperation rate for CASP (10/100 vs. 0/46, p=0.031, Fisher's Exact Test), and rate of RASP (20/100 vs. 1/32, p=0.025) Conclusion: This is the only cohort study to our knowledge comparing surgery for CASP in trauma patients to those with degenerative disease. A higher rate of repeat surgery in degenerative disease patients was found. This suggests that CASP is more related to patient factors predisposing to progressive degenerative disease and not increased mechanical stress.

Anterior Surgical Fixation for Cervical Spine Flexion-Distraction Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Optimal surgical management for flexion-distraction cervical spine injuries remains controversial with current guidelines recommending anterior, posterior, and circumferential approaches. Here, we determined the incidence of and examined risk factors for clinical and radiographic failure in patients with 1-segment cervical distraction injuries having undergone anterior surgical fixation. METHODS: A retrospective review of 57 consecutive patients undergoing anterior fixation for subaxial flexion-distraction cervical injuries between 2008 and 2012 at our institution was performed. The primary outcome was the number of patients requiring additional surgical stabilization and/or radiographic failure. Data collected included age, gender, mechanism and level of injury, facet pattern injury, and vertebral end plate fracture. RESULTS: A total of 6 patients failed clinically and/or radiographically (11%). Four patients (7%) required additional posterior fixation. Although 2 other patients identified met radiographic failure criteria, at follow-up they had fused radiographically, were stable clinically, and no further treatment was pursued. Progressive kyphosis and translation were found to be significantly correlated with need for revision (P < 0.05 and P = 0.02, respectively). No differences were identified for all other clinical and radiologic factors assessed, including unilateral or bilateral facet injury, facet fracture, and end plate fracture. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting anterior fixation alone for flexion-distraction injuries. Findings suggest that current measurements of radiographic failure including segmental translation and kyphosis may predict radiographic failure and need for further surgical stabilization in some patients. Future follow-up studies assessing for independent risk factors for anterior approach failure with a validated predictive scoring model should be considered.