Cervical disc herniation: which surgery?

PURPOSE: Cervical disc herniation is a common pathology. It can be treated by different surgical procedures. We aimed to list and analyzed every available surgical option. We focused on the comparison between anterior cervical decompression and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty. RESULTS: The anterior approach is the most commonly used to achieve decompression and fusion by the mean of autograft or cage that could also be combined with anterior plating. Anterior procedures without fusion have shown good outcomes but are limited by post-operative cervicalgia and kyphotic events. Posterior cervical foraminotomy achieved good outcomes but is not appropriate in a case of a central hernia or ossification of the posterior ligament. Cervical disc arthroplasty is described to decrease the rate of adjacent segment degeneration. It became very popular during the last decades with numerous studies with different implant device showing encouraging results but it has not proved its superiority to anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Anterior bone loss and heterotopic ossification are still to be investigated. CONCLUSION: Anterior cervical decompression and fusion remain the gold standard for surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation.

Outcomes of the Bryan cervical disc replacement: fifteen year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The CTDR is a technique that treats cervical disc degenerative disease. Initial shorter-term studies showed good clinical and radiological results. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiological results of Bryan cervical disc replacement (Medtronic Sofamor Danek Inc., Memphis, TN) at 15-year follow-up. RESULTS: This prospective study included 20 patients who underwent 22 CTDR, comprising a single-level procedure in 14 patients and two-level procedures in six patients. The mean follow-up period was 15.5 years. The mean age at the intervention was 46.2 years (range: 26-65 years). Two patients needed re-operation for recurrence of symptoms. According to Odom's criteria, 80.0% (16 of 20 patients) had excellent outcomes, VAS for neck pain was 2.6 (0-10), for shoulder/arm pain it was 1.8 (0-7), and NDI at the final follow up was 14.9. The SF-12 PCS was 46.1, and SF-12 MCS was 51.9. Mobility was maintained in 15 of the 22 (68.2%) operated segments, range of motion (ROM) of prostheses were 9° ± 3.9° (range 4-15°). The prostheses were positioned in kyphosis in 14 of 22 levels (63.6%). There was a positive correlation between the kyphosis of the prosthesis and the occurrence of heterotopic ossification (HO), and their grade (ρ = 0.36, CI 95%[-0.68; 0.07]). HO had developed at 12 of the 22 levels (54.5%) and upper adjacent segment degeneration in 11 of 18 of patients (64.7%). All these results were not significantly different to outcomes at 8 years follow-up. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of 20 patients with 15-year clinical and radiological follow-up, the Bryan CTDR has demonstrated a sustained clinical improvement and implant mobility over time, despite a moderate progression of degenerative processes at the prosthetic and adjacent levels.

Osteotomies through a fusion mass in the lumbar spine.

INTRODUCTION: Flat-back syndrome is one of the main causes of surgical failure after lumbar fusion and can lead to a revision surgery to correct it. Three-column pedicle subtraction osteotomy is an efficient technique to restore lumbar lordosis (LL) for fixed sagittal malalignment. The fusion mass stemming from the past surgeries makes the procedure demanding as most anatomical landmarks are missing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review article will focus on the correction of this lack of LL through the fusion mass. We will successively review the preoperative management, the surgical specificities, and various types of clinical cases that can be encountered in flat-back syndromes. CONCLUSION: PSO in the fixed fusion mass is technically demanding. Preoperative CT-scan and preoperative navigation allow us to push the limits when anatomical landmarks disappear. Bleeding and neurologic are the two major complications feared by the surgeon. The best way to avoid these revision surgeries is to restore a proper lumbar lordosis at the time of initial surgery by considering lumbo-pelvic indexes.

Distal Junctional Failure: A Feared Complication of Multilevel Posterior Spinal Fusions.

Objectives: Distal junctional failure (DJF) is less commonly described than proximal junctional failure following posterior spinal fusion, and particularly adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. We describe a case series of patients with DJF, taking into account sagittal spinopelvic alignment, and suggest potential risk factors in light of the current literature. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective review of posterior spinal fusion patients with DJF who underwent subsequent revision surgery between June 2009 and January 2019. Demographics and surgical details were collected. Radiographical measurements included the following: preoperative and postoperative sagittal and coronal alignment for each index or revision surgery. The upper-instrumented vertebra (UIV), lower instrumented vertebra (LIV), and fusion length were recorded. Results: Nineteen cases (64.7 ± 13.5 years, 12 women, seven men) were included. The mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 2.4 years. The number of instrumented levels was 6.79 ± 2.97. Among the patients, 84.2% (n = 16) presented at least one known DJF risk factor. LIV was frequently L5 (n = 10) or S1 (n = 2). Six patients had an initial circumferential fusion at the distal end. Initial DJFs were vertebral fracture distal to the fusion (n = 5), screw pull-out (n = 9), spinal stenosis (n = 4), instability (n = 4), and one early DJK. The distal mechanical complications after a first revision included screw pull-out (n = 4), screw fracture (n = 3), non-union (n = 2), and an iatrogenic spondylolisthesis. Conclusions: In this case series, insufficient sagittal balance restoration, female gender, osteoporosis, L5 or S1 LIV in long constructs were associated with DJF. Restoring spinal balance and circumferentially fusing the base of constructs represent key steps to maintain correction and prevent revisions.

Anterior Cervical Idiopathic Hyperostosis and Dysphagia: The Impact of Surgical Management-Study of a Series of 11 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of surgery for dysphagia in anterior cervical idiopathic hyperostosis. METHODS: This retrospective study included 11 consecutive patients presenting with dysphagia and anterior cervical idiopathic hyperostosis. Computed tomography scans and dynamic swallowing fluoroscopies were performed. The site of compression and the size and position of osteophytes were measured. The clinical outcomes and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Two patients with anterior esophageal compression were found to have dysphagia caused by lower esophageal sphincter dysfunction. In the remaining 9 patients, the level of maximal compression was between C3 and C5 with the size of the osteophytes ranging from 8 to 17 mm. Intubation was challenging in 7 patients. Postoperative transient worsening of dysphagia was encountered in 3 patients. Two patients experienced severe complications including aphagia and respiratory compromise. Within 2 months of the operation, all patients reported satisfactory improvement of symptoms and a considerable gain in quality of life. No recurrence had occurred at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior cervical hyperostosis causing dysphagia typically affects older men and results from compression between C3 and C5 from osteophytes of variable sizes. Operative intervention can provide long-lasting resolution of symptoms but is complicated by difficulty in endotracheal intubation, postoperative dysphagia, and rarely respiratory compromise. A systematic preoperative ear, nose, and throat consultation is recommended to reduce these complications.

Relevance of Modified Debridement-Irrigation, Antibiotic Therapy and Implant Retention Protocol for the Management of Surgical Site Infections: A Series of 1694 Instrumented Spinal Surgery.

Introduction: Management of surgical site infections (SSI) after instrumented spinal surgery remains controversial. The debridement-irrigation, antibiotic therapy and implant retention protocol (DAIR protocol) is safe and effective to treat deep SSI occurring within the 3 months after instrumented spinal surgery. Methods: This retrospective study describes the outcomes of patients treated over a period of 42 months for deep SSI after instrumented spinal surgery according to a modified DAIR protocol. Results: Among 1694 instrumented surgical procedures, deep SSI occurred in 46 patients (2.7%): 41 patients (89%) experienced early SSI (< 1 month), 3 (7%) delayed SSI (from 1 to 3 months), and 2 (4%) late SSI (> 3months). A total of 37 patients had a minimum 1 year of follow-up; among these the modified DAIR protocol was effective in 28 patients (76%) and failed (need for new surgery for persistent signs of SSI beyond 7 days) in 9 patients (24%). Early second-look surgery (≤ 7days) for iterative debridement was performed in 3 patients, who were included in the cured group. Among the 9 patients in whom the modified DAIR protocol failed, none had early second-look surgery; 3 (33%) recovered and were cured at 1 year follow-up, and 6 (66%) relapsed. Overall, among patients with SSI and a minimum 1 year follow-up, the modified DAIR protocol led to healing in 31/37 (84%) patients. Conclusions: The present study supports the effectiveness of a modified DAIR protocol in deep SSI occurring within the 3 months after instrumented spinal surgery. An early second-look surgery for iterative debridement could increase the success rate of this treatment.

One-Level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Posterior Approach: Is Transforaminal Lateral Interbody Fusion Mandatory?: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 2-Year Follow-Up.

STUDY DESIGN: A monocentric open-label randomized controlled trial (MRCT). OBJECTIVE: Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes between isolated instrumented posterior fusion (PLF) and associated instrumented posterior fusion and interbody fusion by transforaminal approach (PLF + TLIF) for patients suffering from one-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) undergoing surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DS is a common cause of symptomatic lumbar stenosis. PLF has shown better clinical outcome than decompression with noninstrumented posterolateral fusion. TLIF with interbody cage showed better fusion rate than PLF. There is a need for randomized controlled trials to compare PLF with and without TLIF as to clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: This is a MRCT comparing PLF and TLIF techniques in surgical treatment of DS. Sixty patients were included in a secured database from 2009 to 2011 and randomized into two groups: 30 PLF with posterior pedicle screws and intertransverse autologuous graft, and 30 TLIF in which an interbody fusion by transforaminal approach was added. Data included clinical (pain and disability), surgical (blood loss and operating time), and radiological (alignment and fusion) parameters at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Comparison was made by Student t test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in each group for pain and disability but no difference between the groups. Radiographic assessment showed better posterolateral fusion rate for TLIF without superiority in segmental lordosis improvement. A case of deformity cascade with spino-pelvic mismatch at baseline was noted in PLF. CONCLUSION: Posterior decompression and instrumented fusion is an efficient technique that proved its significant clinical benefit in the surgical treatment of DS. TLIF did not show its superiority neither in clinical nor alignment parameters despite a better fusion rate. These results suggest that TLIF is not mandatory in this specific indication. Sagittal alignment analysis by standing full-body images should be considered in DS care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.