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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Laminoplasty-an underutilized procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTENT: Cervical laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are commonly used surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Several recent studies have demonstrated superior perioperative metrics and decreased overall costs with LP, yet LF is performed far more often in the United States. PURPOSE: To determine the percentage of patients with CSM who are radiographically candidates for LP. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients >18 years old who underwent LF or LP for CSM at 2 large academic institutions from 2017 to 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Candidacy for LP based on radiographic criteria. METHODS: Radiographs were assessed by 2 spine surgeons not involved in the care of the patients to determine the C2-C7 Cobb angle and the presence and extent of cervical instability. Patients with kyphosis >13°, > 3.5 mm of listhesis on static imaging, or > 2.5 mm of motion on flexion-extension or standing-supine films were not considered candidates for LP. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the interobserver reliability of angular measurements and the presence of instability. The percentage of patients for whom LP was contraindicated was calculated. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients underwent LF while 142 underwent LP. Of the 108 patients who underwent LF, 79.6% were radiographically deemed candidates for LP, as were all 142 patients who underwent LP. The ICC for C2-C7 alignment was 0.90; there was 97% agreement with respect to the presence of instability. CONCLUSIONS: In 250 patients with CSM, 228 (91.2%) were radiographically candidates for LP. These data suggest that LP may be an underutilized procedure for the treatment for CSM.

Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction During Posterior Cervical Fusion for Myelopathy Is Associated With Superior Radiographic Parameters But Similar Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: For laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion (LPSF) surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), the evidence is unclear as to whether fusions should cross the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ). OBJECTIVE: To compare LPSF outcomes between those with and without lower instrumented vertebrae (LIV) crossing the CTJ. METHODS: A consecutive series of adults undergoing LPSF for CSM from 2012 to 2018 with a minimum of 12-mo follow-up were identified. LPSF with subaxial upper instrumented vertebrae and LIV between C6 and T2 were included. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were included: 46 crossed the CTJ (crossed-CTJ) and 33 did not. The mean follow-up was 22.2 mo (minimum: 12 mo). Crossed-CTJ had higher preoperative C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) (33.3 ± 16.0 vs 23.8 ± 12.4 mm, P = .01) but similar preoperative cervical lordosis (CL) and CL minus T1-slope (CL minus T1-slope) (P > .05, both comparisons). The overall reoperation rate was 3.8% (crossed-CTJ: 2.2% vs not-crossed: 6.1%, P = .37). In adjusted analyses, crossed-CTJ was associated with superior cSVA (ß = -9.7; P = .002), CL (ß = 6.2; P = .04), and CL minus T1-slope (ß = -6.6; P = .04), but longer operative times (ß = 46.3; P = .001). Crossed- and not-crossed CTJ achieved similar postoperative patient-reported outcomes [Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck pain, VAS arm pain, Nurick Grade, Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association Scale, Neck Disability Index, and EuroQol-5D] in adjusted multivariable analyses (adjusted P > .05). For the entire cohort, higher postoperative CL was associated with lower postoperative arm pain (adjusted Pearson's r -0.1, P = .02). No postoperative cervical radiographic parameters were associated with neck pain (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Subaxial LPSF for CSM that crossed the CTJ were associated with superior radiographic outcomes for cSVA, CL, and CL minus T1-slope, but longer operative times. There were no differences in neck pain or reoperation rate.

Improved Cosmetic Outcome With Bilateral Paraspinal Muscle Flap Closure Following Cervical Laminectomy and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Poor cosmetic results following cervical laminectomy and fusion (CLF) are rarely considered in assessing surgical complications. Atrophy from muscle denervation and posterior bone loss may result in a sunken appearance; relative tension may lead to wide, unsightly scars. Paraspinal muscle flaps are routinely employed by plastic surgeons for closure of wound infection and dehiscence. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical and cosmetic results of CLF with/without a paraspinal muscle flap closure technique. METHODS: A retrospectively collected cohort analysis was undertaken for a 12-yr period in CLF patients. During the study period, a paraspinal muscle flap closure technique was adopted. Wounds were inspected for scar width and depth using a scale devised to categorize the posterior neck contour. Minimum follow-up was 12 mo. RESULTS: Of 159 patients, 94 wounds were evaluated of which 34 had muscle flap closure. There were no differences in age, sex, body mass index, mJOA scores, diabetes status, or number of spinal levels treated. Mean follow-up was 18.6 (12-48) and 49.8 (12-130) mo in the muscle flap and conventional closure groups respectively; contour scores were 1.20 vs 2.65 (P < .00001) and scar width was 2.8 vs 4.9 mm (P < .0001). No patient had a wound complication in the muscle flap group and 4 (7%) in the conventional closure group. CONCLUSION: Paraspinal muscle flap closure of CLF improved cosmetic appearance in terms of wound contour and scar width. Further investigation is needed to determine any effect upon wound infection and dehiscence rates.

Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cervical laminoplasty (CLP) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (CLF) are well-established surgical procedures used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). In situations of clinical equipoise, an influential factor in procedural decision making could be the economic effect of the chosen procedure. The object of this study is to compare and analyze the total hospital costs and charges pertaining to patients undergoing CLP or CLF for the treatment of CSM. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 81 consecutive patients from a single institution; 55 patients were treated with CLP and 26 with CLF. CLP was performed via the double-door allograft technique that does not require implants, whereas laminectomy fusion procedures included metallic instrumentation. We analyzed 10,682 individual costs (HC) and charges (HCh) for all patients, as obtained from hospital accounting data. The Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to estimate the physicians' fees as such fees are not accounted for via hospital billing records. Total cost (TC) therefore equaled the sum of the hospital cost and the estimated physicians' fees. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 3.7 days for CLP and 5.9 days for CLF (P < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, previous surgical history, and medical insurance. The TC mean was $17,734 for CLP and $37,413 for CLF (P < .01). Mean HCh for CLP was 42% of that for CLF, and therefore the mean charge for CLF was 238% of that for CLP (P < .01). Mean HC was $15,426 for CLP and $32,125 for CLF (P < .01); the main contributor was implant cost (mean $2582). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that, in clinically similar populations, CLP results in reduced length of stay, TC, and hospital charges. In CSM cases requiring posterior decompression, we demonstrate CLP to be a less costly procedure. However, in the presence of neck pain, kyphotic deformity, or gross instability, this procedure may not be sufficient and posterior CLF may be required.