Clinical Outcomes Following Decompression of Central Canal and Lateral Recess Simultaneous Stenosis, with a Focus on Multilevel Stenosis: A Randomized Comparison of Microscopic Bilateral Laminotomy versus Total Laminectomy with Posterior Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: In patients with simultaneous lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS) and lateral recess stenosis (LRS) at multiple levels, spinal decompression using microscopic bilateral laminotomy was compared to total laminectomy plus medial facetectomy and fusion (LF). METHODS: From 2017 to 2022, this trial was performed to examine 96 patients with concomitant LCS and LRS at multilevel. Of the 96 patients, 48 were allocated to the following groups: LF (group I) or microscopic bilateral laminotomy (group II). However, 76 patients completed the study. We compared the outcomes in these 2 groups. RESULTS: Microscopic bilateral laminotomy was superior in most outcome measures. Delta-visual analog scale leg pain in group II was significantly greater than in group I (mean-group I: 4.368 vs. group II: 5.368, P value = 0.001). Complication and revision rates were lower in the microscopic bilateral laminotomy than in group I, except for incidental durotomy occurrence (group II: 31.58% -group I: 7.89%, P value = 0.0190). The rate of revision surgery for group I compared with group II was 44.74% versus 13.16% (P value = 0.0047), indicating the superiority of laminotomy over LF. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.551 ± 0.6349 in group II versus 6.774 ± 1.197 in group I (P value <0.0001). Also, blood loss during surgery was significantly lower in group II (P value <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that microscopic bilateral laminotomy provides favorable clinical and radiological outcomes for individuals experiencing multilevel lumbar central canal and LRS. However, a higher frequency of durotomy may occur during microsurgical procedures.

A Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes after Surgical Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy in the Geriatric Patient Population: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database 2010-2020.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2010 to 2020. PURPOSE: To compare the short-term complication rates of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical laminoplasty (LP), and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) in a geriatric population. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The geriatric population in the United States has increased significantly. Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is caused by cervical spinal stenosis, and its prevalence increases with age. Therefore, the incidence of multilevel DCM requiring surgical intervention is likely to increase. ACDF, LP, and PCF are the most commonly used surgical techniques for treating multilevel DCM. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical technique for the decompression of DCM in geriatric patients. METHODS: Patients aged 65 years who had undergone either multilevel ACDF, LP, or PCF for the treatment of DCM were analyzed. Additional analysis was performed by standardizing the data for the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification scores and preoperative functional status. RESULTS: A total of 23,129 patients were identified. Patients with ACDF were younger, more often female, and preoperatively healthier than those in the other two groups. The estimated postoperative mortality and morbidity, mean operation time, and length of hospital stay were the lowest for ACDF, second lowest for LP, and highest for PCF. The readmission and reoperation rates were comparable between ACDF and LP; however, both were significantly lower than PCF. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is associated with the highest risk of mortality, morbidity, unplanned reoperation, and unplanned readmission in the short-term postoperative period in patients aged 65 years. In contrast, ACDF carries the lowest risk. However, some disease-specific factors may require posterior treatment. For these cases, LP should be included in the preoperative discussion when determining the ideal surgical approach for geriatric patients.

Comparing Spinal Cord Drift, Clinical Outcomes and C5 Palsy in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Study of Cervical Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy/Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVES: (i)to compare spinal cord drift between laminectomy and fusion(LF) and cervical laminoplasty(LP) for degenerative cervical myelopathy(DCM) treatment,(ii)to study relationship between preoperative cervical alignment, postoperative spinal cord drift, functional outcome, and C5 palsy. METHODS: A cohort of 114 patients who underwent LP or LF for DCM were identified. After propensity-score matching, both groups included 30 patients each.Cobb angle(C2-C7) was used to assess pre-and postoperative cervical spine alignment(at 2-year follow-up).Based on alignment, there were lordotic(L) and straight(S) subgroups.Spinal cord position was measured on sagittal-and axial-T2W MRI of cervical spine pre-and postoperatively at 2-year follow-up and cord drift was measured by subtracting preoperative values from postoperative values.Functional recovery(mJOA score, mJOA recovery rate),and C5 palsy in patients were recorded and compared. RESULTS: LF had higher mean spinal cord drift than LP(2.66 ± .77 vs 2.16 ± .80 mm, P = .049).Lordotic subgroups exhibited greater cord drift than straight subgroups within LP and LF groups.Both groups significantly improved mJOA scores at 2-year follow-up, with no LP-LF difference in mJOA recovery rate(mJOA-RR).Lordotic subgroups had significantly higher mJOA-RR(LP-L vs LP-S,P = .048; LF-L vs LF-S,P = .045).Preoperative cervical alignment, cord drift, and mJOA-RR correlated well(Spearman's ρ .7143 and .6053 respectively).Patients with >2.5 mm cord drift(n = 24) had significantly higher mJOA-RR as compared to <2.5 mm cord drift(n = 18). Substantial clinical difference was seen in C5 palsy risk between LP-S and LF-L, with the LF-L group having 3-fold higher risk. CONCLUSION: LF had a biomechanical advantage in maximizing spinal cord drift in severe DCM cases, while both LP and LF showed significant improvements in neurological function. However, variability in C5 palsy rates highlights the need for individualized patient assessment.

What Happens to Sagittal Alignment Following Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion?

OBJECTIVE: Laminectomy and fusion (LF) and laminoplasty (LP) are 2 sucessful posterior decompression techniques for cervical myelo-radiculopathy. There is also a growing body of evidence describing the importance of cervical sagittal alignment (CSA) and its importance in outcomes. We investigated the difference between pre- and postoperative CSA parameters in and between LF or LP. Furthermore, we studied predictive variables associated with change in cervical mismatch (CM). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adults with cervical myeloradiculopathy in a single healthcare system. The primary outcomes are intra- and inter-cohort comparison of LF versus LP radiographic parameters at pre- and postoperative time points. A secondary multivariable analysis of predictive factors was performed evaluating factors predicting postoperative CM. RESULTS: Eighty nine patients were included; 38 (43%) had LF and 51 (57%) underwent LP. Both groups decreased in lordosis (LF 11.4° vs. 4.9°, P = 0.01; LP 15.2° vs. 9.1°, P < 0.001), increased in cSVA (LF 3.4 vs. 4.2 cm, P = 0.01; LP 3.2 vs. 4.2 cm, P < 0.001), and increased in CM (LF 22.0° vs. 28.5°, P = 0.02; LP 16.8° vs. 22.3°, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in the postoperative CSA between groups. No significant predictors of change in pre- and postoperative CM were found. CONSLUSIONS: There were no significant pre-or postoperative differences following the 2 procedures, suggesting radiographic equipoise in well indicated patients. Across all groups, lordosis decreased, cSVA increased, and cervical mismatch increased. There were no predictive factors that led to change in cervical mismatch.

Comparison Between Sagittal Balance Outcomes After Corpectomy, Laminectomy, and Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Matched Cohort Study.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) can be successfully decompressed via either anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) or posterior laminectomy with fusion (LMF). However, few studies have compared the isolated effect of both techniques on cervical sagittal balance, a surrogate end point for clinical outcomes.We aimed to compare the sagittal balance radiological outcomes of ACCF against LMF. A case-matched controlled study of radiological cervical alignment parameters (C0-2, C2-3, index angles, T1 slope, and sagittal vertical axis (SVA)) in two groups of patients was performed by using pre- and postoperative neutral cervical X-rays.In total, 34 patients were enrolled (ACCF n = 17; LMF n = 17). The mean preoperative C2-7 angle was similar (11.58 ± 16.00° for ACCF; 13.36 ± 12.21° for LMF) in both cohorts. Both led to a loss of lordosis (-2.68 ± 13.8°, p = 0.43; -2.94 ± 11.5°, p = 0.31, respectively). At the C0-2, the two operations induced opposite variations (-0.9 ± 8.0°, p = 0.709 for ACCF; 3.5 ± 15.4°, p = 0.357 for LMF). ACCF led to a significant increase in SVA (7.1 ± 11.9 mm, p = 0.002). The C2-3 disk angle more pronouncedly increased with LMF.Both techniques show an equivalent kyphotic effect, with a greater disadvantage for ACCF. The negative impact on SVA changes is greater with ACCF. Both affect the C0-2 unit, with a tendency for kyphosis with ACCF and one for lordosis with LMF. When choosing the appropriate decompression and fusion technique, preoperative sagittal balance parameters should be included in the decision-making process.

Inpatient opioid use varies by construct length among laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion patients.

Background: Laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are utilized to achieve decompression in patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Comparative analyses aimed at determining outcomes and clarifying indications between these procedures represent an area of active research. Accordingly, we sought to compare inpatient opioid use between LP and LF patients and to determine if opioid use correlated with length of stay. Methods: Sociodemographic information, surgical and hospitalization data, and medication administration records were abstracted for patients >18 years of age who underwent LP or LF for DCM in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system between 2017 and 2019. Specifically, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of oral and parenteral pain medication given after arrival in the recovery area until discharge from the hospital were collected. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-squared analysis or Fisher exact test when appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using Independent samples t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: One hundred eight patients underwent LF, while 138 patients underwent LP. Total inpatient opioid use was significantly higher in the LF group (312 vs. 260 MME, p=.03); this difference was primarily driven by higher postoperative day 0 pain medication requirements. Furthermore, more LF patients required high dose (>80 MME/day) regimens. While length of stay was significantly different between groups, with LF patients staying approximately 1 additional day, postoperative day 0 MME was not a significant predictor of this difference. When operative levels including C2, T1, and T2 were excluded, the differences in total opioid use and average length of stay lost significance. Conclusions: Inpatient opioid use and length of stay were significantly greater in LF patients compared to LP patients; however, when constructs including C2, T1, T2 were excluded from analysis, these differences lost significance. Such findings highlight the impact of operative extent between these procedures. Future studies incorporating patient reported outcomes and evaluating long-term pain needs will provide a more complete understanding of postoperative outcomes between these 2 procedures.

Cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy and posterior cervical fusion for cervical myelopathy: propensity-matched analysis of 24-month outcomes from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: Compared with laminectomy with posterior cervical fusion (PCF), cervical laminoplasty (CL) may result in different outcomes for those operated on for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The aim of this study was to compare 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for laminoplasty versus PCF by using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM data set. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using an augmented data set from the prospectively collected QOD Registry Cervical Module. Patients undergoing laminoplasty or PCF for CSM were included. Using the nearest-neighbor method, the authors performed 1:1 propensity matching based on age, operated levels, and baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) and visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain scores. The 24-month PROs, i.e., mJOA, Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction scores, were compared. Only cases in the subaxial cervical region were included; those that crossed the cervicothoracic junction were excluded. RESULTS: From the 1141 patients included in the QOD CSM data set who underwent anterior or posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy, 946 (82.9%) had 24 months of follow-up. Of these, 43 patients who underwent laminoplasty and 191 who underwent PCF met the inclusion criteria. After matching, the groups were similar for baseline characteristics, including operative levels (CL group: 4.0 ± 0.9 vs PCF group: 4.2 ± 1.1, p = 0.337) and baseline PROs (p > 0.05), except for a higher percentage involved in activities outside the home in the CL group (95.3% vs 81.4%, p = 0.044). The 24-month follow-up for the matched cohorts was similar (CL group: 88.4% vs PCF group: 83.7%, p = 0.534). Patients undergoing laminoplasty had significantly lower estimated blood loss (99.3 ± 91.7 mL vs 186.7 ± 142.7 mL, p = 0.003), decreased length of stay (3.0 ± 1.6 days vs 4.5 ± 3.3 days, p = 0.012), and a higher rate of routine discharge (88.4% vs 62.8%, p = 0.006). The CL cohort also demonstrated a higher rate of return to activities (47.2% vs 21.2%, p = 0.023) after 3 months. Laminoplasty was associated with a larger improvement in 24-month NDI score (-19.6 ± 18.9 vs -9.1 ± 21.9, p = 0.031). Otherwise, there were no 3- or 24-month differences in mJOA, mean NDI, VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and distribution of NASS satisfaction scores (p > 0.05) between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PCF, laminoplasty was associated with decreased blood loss, decreased length of hospitalization, and higher rates of home discharge. At 3 months, laminoplasty was associated with a higher rate of return to baseline activities. At 24 months, laminoplasty was associated with greater improvements in neck disability. Otherwise, laminoplasty and PCF shared similar outcomes for functional status, pain, quality of life, and satisfaction. Laminoplasty and PCF achieved similar neck pain scores, suggesting that moderate preoperative neck pain may not necessarily be a contraindication for laminoplasty.

Three-level ACDF versus 3-level laminectomy and fusion: are there differences in outcomes? An analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database cervical spondylotic myelopathy cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to compare 3-level anterior with posterior fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The authors analyzed prospective data from the 14 highest enrolling sites of the Quality Outcomes Database CSM module. They compared 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) surgical procedures, excluding surgical procedures crossing the cervicothoracic junction. Rates of reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable analyses adjusted for potential confounders elucidated in univariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 199 patients met the inclusion criteria: 123 ACDF (61.8%) and 76 PCF (38.2%) patients. The 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF 90.2% vs PCF 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF patients were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs 65.0 ± 10.3 years, p < 0.01), and greater proportions were privately insured (56.1% vs 36.8%, p = 0.02), actively employed (39.8% vs 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS)-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). ACDF patients had reduced hospitalization length (1.6 vs 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion had nonroutine discharge (7.3% vs 22.8%, p < 0.01), but they had a higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.049). Compared with baseline values, both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, after controlling for age, insurance payor, employment status, ambulation status, and other potential clinically relevant confounders, ACDF was associated with a greater proportion of patients with maximum satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS) (NASS score of 1) at 24 months (69.4% vs 53.7%, OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.17-5.09, adjusted p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month outcomes in terms of reaching the MCID for mJOA, NDI, NRS-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D score (adjusted p > 0.05). There were no differences in the 3-month readmission (ACDF 4.1% vs PCF 3.9%, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation (ACDF 13.5% vs PCF 18.6%, p = 0.36) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort limited to 3-level fusion surgical procedures, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization length, and higher routine home discharge rates; however, PCF resulted in lower rates of postoperative dysphagia. The procedures yielded comparably significant improvements in functional status (mJOA score), neck and arm pain, neck pain-related disability, and quality of life at 3, 12, and 24 months. ACDF patients had significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction (NASS score 1). Given comparable outcomes, patients should be counseled on each approach's complication profile to aid in surgical decision-making.

Cervical sagittal alignment changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, laminectomy with fusion, and laminoplasty for multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical sagittal alignment changes (CSACs) influence outcomes and health-related quality-of-life. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), laminectomy with fusion (LCF), and laminoplasty (LP) are common treatments for multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy; however, these approaches need to be compared. METHODS: Our study included 167 patients who underwent ACDF, LCF, or LP. Patients were divided into four groups according to C2-C7 Cobb angle (CL): kyphosis (CL < 0°), straight (0° ≤ CL < 10°), lordosis (10° ≤ CL < 20°), and extreme lordosis (20° ≤ CL) groups. CSACs consist of two parts. CSAC from the preoperative period to the postoperative period is surgical correction change (SCC). CSAC from the postoperative period to the final follow-up period is postoperative lordosis preserving (PLP). Outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and the neck disability index. RESULTS: ACDF, LCF, and LP had equivalent outcomes. ACDF had greater SCC than LCF and LP. During follow-up, lordosis decreased in the ACDF and LCF groups but increased in the LP group. For straight alignment, ACDF had greater CSAC and greater SCC than the LCF and LP groups but similar PLP. For lordosis alignment, ACDF and LP had positive PLP, and LCF had negative PLP. For extreme lordosis, ACDF, LP, and LCF had negative PLP; however, cervical lordosis in the LP group was relatively stable during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ACDF, LCF, and LP have different CSAC, SCC, and PLP according to a four-type cervical sagittal alignment classification. Preoperative cervical alignment is an important consideration in deciding the type of surgical treatment in CSM.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy with severe axial neck pain: is anterior or posterior approach better?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) is superior for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and high preoperative neck pain. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM module. Patients who received a subaxial fusion of 3 or 4 segments and had a visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score of 7 or greater at baseline were included. The 3-, 12-, and 24-month outcomes were compared for patients undergoing ACDF with those undergoing PCLF. RESULTS: Overall, 1141 patients with CSM were included in the database. Of these, 495 (43.4%) presented with severe neck pain (VAS score > 6). After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we compared 65 patients (54.6%) undergoing 3- and 4-level ACDF and 54 patients (45.4%) undergoing 3- and 4-level PCLF. Patients undergoing ACDF had worse Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (52.5 ± 15.9 vs 45.9 ± 16.8, p = 0.03) but similar neck pain (p > 0.05). Otherwise, the groups were well matched for the remaining baseline patient-reported outcomes. The rates of 24-month follow-up for ACDF and PCLF were similar (86.2% and 83.3%, respectively). At the 24-month follow-up, both groups demonstrated mean improvements in all outcomes, including neck pain (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, there was no significant difference in the degree of neck pain change, rate of neck pain improvement, rate of pain-free achievement, and rate of reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain between the two groups (adjusted p > 0.05). However, ACDF was associated with a higher 24-month modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA) score (ß = 1.5 [95% CI 0.5-2.6], adjusted p = 0.01), higher EQ-5D score (ß = 0.1 [95% CI 0.01-0.2], adjusted p = 0.04), and higher likelihood for return to baseline activities (OR 1.2 [95% CI 1.1-1.4], adjusted p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Severe neck pain is prevalent among patients undergoing surgery for CSM, affecting more than 40% of patients. Both ACDF and PCLF achieved comparable postoperative neck pain improvement 3, 12, and 24 months following 3- or 4-segment surgery for patients with CSM and severe neck pain. However, multilevel ACDF was associated with superior functional status, quality of life, and return to baseline activities at 24 months in multivariable adjusted analyses.

Perioperative Complications of Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Comparison Between 3 Procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative complications of propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), who were treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), posterior laminectomy with fusion, or laminoplasty. METHODS: The Humana PearlDiver Patient Record Database was queried using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and ICD-10) and the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Propensity score-matched analysis was done using multiple Chi-squared tests with Bonferroni correction of the significance level. RESULTS: Cohorts of 11,790 patients who had ACDF, 2,257 patients who had posterior laminectomy with fusion, and 477 patients who had laminoplasty, were identified. After propensity score matching, all the 3 groups included 464 patients. The incidence of dysphagia increased significantly following ACDF compared to laminoplasty, P < 0.001, and in laminectomy with fusion compared to laminoplasty, P < 0.001. The incidence of new-onset cervicalgia was higher in ACDF compared to laminoplasty, P = 0.005, and in laminectomy with fusion compared to laminoplasty, P = 0.004. The incidence of limb paralysis increased significantly in laminectomy with fusion compared to ACDF, P = 0.002. The revision rate at 1 year increased significantly in laminectomy with fusion compared to laminoplasty, P < 0.001, and in ACDF compared to laminoplasty, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of dysphagia following laminectomy with fusion was not different compared to ACDF. Postoperative new-onset cervicalgia and revisions were least common in laminoplasty. The highest rate of postoperative limb paralysis was noticed in laminectomy with fusion.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Open-Door Laminoplasty, French-Door Laminoplasty, Laminectomy and Fusion, and Laminectomy Alone for Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of open-door laminoplasty (OLP), French-door laminoplasty (FLP), laminectomy and fusion (LF), and laminectomy alone (LA) in treating multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (MDCM). METHODS: Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane library were searched from their inception date to 7 January 2021. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing OLP, FLP, LF, and LA were identified to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA). RESULTS: A total of 30 studies with 2671 patients were included. Our NMA results showed no significant difference between LF and OLP, but both are superior to LA and FLP in the comparison of JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association) score improvement. LF showed a most unsatisfactory outcome in postoperative range of motion (ROM) compared with LA or OLP or with FLP. For the complication outcome, no significant differences were found. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) for JOA improvement was as follows: LF, OPL, LA, and FLP. For ROM reduction it was LA, OPL, FPL, and LF. For complications it was LF, LA, OLP, and FLP. CONCLUSIONS: Considering all the evaluated criteria, none of the procedures showed the best outcome with least complications and optimal efficacy. However, OLP can be most recommended because of its second-ranking spectra in both of JOA improvement and ROM reduction, also with an acceptable incidence of complications, with the third least.

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Cervical Laminectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of 4-Level Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the therapeutic effects of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Laminectomy and Fusion (CLF) in the treatment of 4-level cervical. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review on 39 patients with 4-level CSM who underwent ACDF or CLF in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2010 to December 2018. The patients were divided into ACDF group and CLF group according to the treatment. The operative index was evaluated based on intraoperative blood loss and operation time. The functional outcomes including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and visual analogue scale (VAS) of axial pain were compared. The Cobb angle, Cobb angle improvement rate, range of motion (ROM) and ROM loss ratio were measured for radiographic evaluation. RESULTS: No major complications or deaths occurred. The average age at baseline was 55 years. There was no significant difference between the ACDF and CLF group in follow-up time (26.29 months, 25.39 months, P > 0.05). The intraoperative blood loss was higher in the CLF group than in the ACDF group (692.67 ± 38.68 vs 392.14 ± 128.06, P < 0.05). The operation time was longer in the CLF group than in the ACDF group (206.60 ± 49.37 vs 172.64 ± 31.96, P < 0.05). Significant improvements in the VAS and JOA scores were observed in both groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference in VAS was found between the ACDF and CLF groups (P < 0.05). There was a significantly larger improvement rate of JOA score in the ACDF group than in the CLF group (60.9% ± 9.57% vs 31.5% ± 15.70%, P < 0.05). There were two (9.6%) cases with complications In the ACDF group, including one (4.8%) case of dysphagia and one (4.8%) case of pharyngodynia. In the CLF group, two patients (11.1%) developed C5 palsy. No significant difference in the incidence of complications, ROM loss ratio and Cobb angle improvement rate was found between group ACDF and group CLF (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both ACDF and CLF were effective in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis and ACDF is more suitable for patients with 4-level CSM.

A Comparison of Various Surgical Treatments for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term outcomes for Laminoplasty, Laminectomy/fusion, and ACDF. METHODS: We utilized a prospectively-collected, multi-center national database with a propensity score matching algorithm to compare the short-term outcomes for laminoplasty, laminectomy/fusion, and multi-level (>3) ACDF (with and without corpectomy). Bivariate analyses involved both chi-square/fisher exact test and t-test/ANOVA on perioperative factors. Multivariate analyses were performed to determined independent risk factors for short term outcomes. RESULTS: 546 patients remained after propensity score matching, with 182 patients in each cohort. ACDF required the longest operative time 188 ± 79 versus laminectomy/fusion (169 ± 75, p = 0.017), and laminoplasty (167 ± 66, p = 0.004). ACDF required the shortest hospital stay (LOS ≥ 2: ACDF 56.6%, laminoplasty 89.6%, laminectomy/fusion 93.4%, p < 0.05). ACDF had lower overall complications (ACDF 3.9%, laminoplasty 7.7%, laminectomy/fusion 11.5%, p < 0.05), mortality (ACDF 0%, laminoplasty 0.55%, laminectomy/fusion 2.2%, p < 0.05), and unplanned readmissions (ACDF 4.4%, laminoplasty 4.4%, laminectomy/fusion 9.9%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were seen in the other outcomes including DVT/PT, acute renal failure, UTI, stroke, cardiac complications, or sepsis. In the multivariate analysis, laminectomy/fusion (OR 17, reference: ACDF) and laminoplasty (OR10, reference: ACDF) were strong independent risk factors for LOS ≥ 2 days. Laminectomy/fusion (OR 3.2, reference: ACDF) was an independent predictor for any adverse events 30-days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laminectomy/fusion carries the highest risk for morbidity, mortality, and unplanned readmissions in the short-term postoperative period. Laminoplasty and ACDF cases carry similar short-term complications risks. ACDF is significantly associated with the longest operative duration and shortest LOS without an increase in individual or overall complications, readmissions, or reoperations.

Laminectomy and fusion in multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy - Correlation between objective and subjective postoperative restriction of cervical spine mobility.

For patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), laminectomy and fusion is an established technique. A concomitant effect of multilevel fusion is a restriction of cervical spine mobility. This retrospective study on DCM-patients with at least 4 laminectomy and fusion levels, compares data between objective and subjective restriction of the postoperative cervical spine mobility. The patient-reported restriction of cervical spine mobility was acquired by a five-step score. Measurements of cervical range of motion were performed using the CROM device and were correlated with the subjective scores. Fusion was performed over 6 levels in most of the 36 patients. For the subjective cervical spine mobility, 52.8% reported none to medium, 38.9% severe and 8.3% complete restriction. Mean objective cervical range of motion was 45.0° for flexion-extension, 26.3° for total lateral flexion and 51.4° for total rotation and therefore evidently reduced compared to non-operated patient cohorts in literature. There was a significant medium, negative correlation between the objective measurements and the patient-reported general restriction of cervical spine mobility, and with the physical component summary of SF-8. The significant objective reduction of cervical range of motion after laminectomy and multilevel fusion correlates with the patient-reported assessment for general restriction.

Prediction of the risk of C5 palsy after posterior laminectomy and fusion with cervical myelopathy using a support vector machine: an analysis of 184 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to predict C5 palsy (C5P) after posterior laminectomy and fusion (PLF) with cervical myelopathy (CM) from routinely available variables using a support vector machine (SVM) method. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective investigation based on 184 consecutive patients with CM after PLF, and data were collected from March 2013 to December 2019. Clinical and imaging variables were obtained and imported into univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors for C5P. According to published reports and clinical experience, a series of variables was selected to develop an SVM machine learning model to predict C5P. The accuracy (ACC), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and confusion matrices were used to evaluate the performance of the prediction model. RESULTS: Among the 184 consecutive patients, C5P occurred in 26 patients (14.13%). Multivariate analyses demonstrated the following 4 independent factors associated with C5P: abnormal electromyogram (odds ratio [OR] = 7.861), JOA recovery rate (OR = 1.412), modified Pavlov ratio (OR = 0.009), and presence of C4-C5 foraminal stenosis (OR = 15.492). The SVM model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.923 and an ACC of 0.918. Additionally, the confusion matrix showed the classification results of the discriminant analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The designed SVM model presented satisfactory performance in predicting C5P from routinely available variables. However, future external validation is needed.

Laminoplasty with selective fusion at unstable segment versus laminectomy with fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Segmental cervical instability is a risk factor for the progression of osteophytic bone spurs and development of myelopathy, and is treated as a relative contraindication of cervical laminoplasty. The aim of this study was to compare laminoplasty with selective fixation (LPSF) versus laminectomy with fusion (LCF) in patients with multilevel cervical myelopathy accompanied by segmental instability. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted by reviewing data from 63 patients who underwent LPSF (n = 30) or LCF (n = 33). Cervical alignment, range of motion (ROM), neurologic status and axial symptom severity pre-operation, 3-days after operation, and at the final follow-up (minimum 24 months) were measured and compared between groups. RESULTS: Postoperation, patients in the LPSF group lost 31.1 ± 17.3 % of cervical lordosis and 43.2 ± 10.9 % cervical ROM while patients in the LCF group lost 5.7 ± 8.2 % and 67.9 ± 15.5 %, respectively. Both LPSF and LCF groups significantly improved neurologic status and axial symptom severity at the final follow-up with similar between-group results(P > 0.05). Blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, and medical cost in the LPSF group were significantly less than in the LCF group(P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In 2 years of clinical observation, LPSF was effective in maintaining the stability of the cervical spine with less sacrifice of mobility and surgical trauma for multilevel myelopathy with segmental instability compared to LCF.

Current surgical practice for multi-level degenerative cervical myelopathy: Findings from an international survey of spinal surgeons.

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) results from compression of the cervical spine cord as a result of age related changes in the cervical spine, and affects up to 2% of adults, leading to progressive disability. Surgical decompression is the mainstay of treatment, but there remains significant variation in surgical approaches used. This survey was conducted in order to define current practice amongst spine surgeons worldwide, as a possible prelude to further studies comparing surgical approaches. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed and piloted by the investigators using SurveyMonkey. Collected data was categorical and is presented using summary statistics. Where applicable, statistical comparisons were made using a Chi-Squared test. The level of significance for all statistical analyses was defined as p < 0.05. All analysis, including graphs was performed using R (R Studio). RESULTS: 127 surgeons, from 30 countries completed the survey; principally UK (66, 52%) and North America (15, 12%). Respondents were predominantly Neurosurgeons by training (108, 85%) of whom 84 (75%) reported Spinal Surgery as the principal part of their practice. The majority indicated they selected their surgical procedure for multi-level DCM on a case by case basis (62, 49%). Overall, a posterior approach was more popular for multi-level DCM (74, 58%). Region, speciality or annual multi-level case load did not influence this significantly. However, there was a trend for North American surgeons to be more likely to favour a posterior approach. CONCLUSIONS: A posterior approach was favoured and more commonly used to treat multi-level DCM, in an international cohort of surgeons. Posterior techniques including laminectomy, laminectomy and fusion or laminoplasty appeared to be equally popular.

Smoking Is an Independent Risk Factor for 90-Day Readmission and Reoperation Following Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCF) is a common procedure used to treat various cervical spine pathologies, but the 90-d outcomes following PCF surgery continue to be incompletely defined. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors associated with 90-d readmission and reoperation following PCF surgery. METHODS: Adults undergoing PCF from 2012 to 2020 were identified. Demographic and radiographic data, surgical characteristics, and 90-d outcomes were collected. Univariate analysis was performed using Student's t-test, chi square, and Fisher exact tests as appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression models with lasso penalty were used to analyze various risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients were included. The 90-d readmission and reoperation rates were 9.3% and 4.6%, respectively. The most common reason for readmission was surgical site infection (SSI) (33.3%) followed by new neurological deficits (16.7%). Patients who smoked tobacco had 3-fold greater odds of readmission compared to nonsmokers (odds ratio [OR]: 3.48; 95% CI 1.87-6.67; P = .0001). Likewise, the most common reason for reoperation was SSI (33.3%) followed by seroma and implant failure (25.0% each). Smoking was also an independent risk factor for reoperation, associated with nearly 4-fold greater odds of return to the operating room (OR: 3.53; 95% CI 1.53-8.57; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Smoking is a significant predictor of 90-d readmission and reoperation in patients undergoing PCF surgery. Smoking cessation should be strongly considered preoperatively in elective PCF cases to minimize the risk of 90-d readmission and reoperation.

Long-Term Results after Multilevel Fusion of the Cervical Spine and the Cervicothoracic Junction: To Bridge or Not To Bridge?

OBJECTIVE: For patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy, laminectomy and fusion are widely accepted techniques for ameliorating the disorder. However, the idea of whether one should bridge the cervicothoracic junction to prevent instrument failure or adjacent segment disease has been a subject of controversial discussion. In the present study, we compared the incidence of these complications and the revision rates in multilevel fusions extending to C7 or T1-T3. METHODS: In the present single-center, retrospective cohort study, patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy treated with laminectomy and fusion to C7 or T1-T3 from 2004 to 2016 were included for evaluation. The primary outcome measure was radiologically proven complications at the most caudal level or the adjacent spinal fusion level. RESULTS: Laminectomy and multilevel fusion were performed in 84 patients. After applying the exclusion criteria, 20 patients with fusion to C7 (treated from 2004 to 2012; follow-up, 124.6 ± 10.6 months) and 38 patients with fusion to T1-T3 (treated from 2008 to 2016; follow-up, 58.2 ± 15.7 months) were evaluated. The incidence of complications at the most caudal or adjacent level of fusion was twice as high (P = 0.087; NS) in the C7 group (11 of 20; 55.0%) compared with the T1-T3 group (11 of 38; 28.9%). In the C7 group, 9 of the 20 patients (45.0%) had required revision surgery compared with 2 of 38 patients (5.3%) in the T1-T3 group (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that fewer revisions were necessary if the fusion had extended to the thoracic spine. Thus, we recommend bridging the cervicothoracic junction when fusion starts at C0-C3.