Tag: Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion

Posted on

Workers’ Compensation Association With Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion

Neurosurgery 90:322–328, 2022

Research has suggested that workers’ compensation (WC) status can result in poor outcomes after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence WC status has on postoperative clinical outcomes after ACDF.

METHODS: A surgical database was reviewed for patients undergoing primary or revision single-level ACDF. Patients were grouped into WC vs Non-WC, and differences in baseline characteristics were assessed. Postoperative improvement was assessed for differences in mean scores between WC subgroups for visual analog scale (VAS) arm, VAS neck, 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Score, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function (PF), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) at preoperative and postoperative time points. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was compared between groups.

RESULTS: The patient cohort included 44 with WC and 95 without. The cohort was 40% female with an average age of 48 years and mean body mass index of 30. Mean VAS arm, VAS neck, NDI, 12-item Short-Form Physical Composite Score, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PF scores differed between groups; however, the difference was not sustained at the 1-yr time point. MCID achievement among WC subgroups was different for VAS arm (6 wk through 6 mo, P = .005), VAS neck (3 and 6 mo, P < .01), and NDI (3 and 6 mo, P < .05). No statistically significant difference was noted between cohorts for overall rates of MCID achievement for all patient-reported outcome measures collected.

CONCLUSION: WC patients reported similar preoperative and 1-yr postoperative neck and arm pain compared with non-WC patients after ACDF. One-yr MCID achievement rates were similar between cohorts for disability and PF scores.

Posted on

Early Outcomes of Elective Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion for Degenerative Spine Disease Correlate With the Specialty of the Surgeon Performing the Procedure

Neurosurgery 90:99–105, 2022

Comparative effectiveness research has a vital role in recent health reform and policies. Specialty training is one of these provider-side variables, and surgeons who were trained in different specialties may have different outcomes on performing the same procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of spine surgeon specialty (neurosurgery vs orthopedic surgery) on early perioperative outcome measures of elective anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative spine diseases.

METHODS: This was a retrospective, 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study. In total, 21 211 patients were reviewed from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Propensity score matching and subgroup analysis were performed.

RESULTS: In both groups (single-level/multilevel ACDF), patients operated on by neurosurgeons had longer operation time (133 vs 104 min/164 vs 138 min), shorter total hospital stay (24 vs 41 h/25 vs 46 h), and lower rates of return to operating room (0.7% vs 2.1%/0.6% vs 2.4%), nonhome discharge (1.2% vs 4.6%/1.0% vs 4.9%), discharge after postoperative day 1 (6.7% vs 11.9%/10.1% vs 18.9%), perioperative blood transfusion (0.4% vs 2.1%/0.6% vs 3.1%), and sepsis (0.2% vs 0.7%/0.1% vs 0.7%; P < .05). In the singlelevel ACDF group, patients operated on by neurosurgeons had lower readmission (1.9% vs 4.1%) and unplanned intubation rates (0.1% vs 1.1%; P < .05). Other outcome measures and mortality rates were similar among the 2 cohorts in both groups.

CONCLUSION: Our analysis found significant differences in early perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. These differences might have significant clinical and cost implications for patients, physicians, program directors, payers, and health systems.

Posted on

Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study Evaluating the Correlation of Clinical Outcomes and Cervical Sagittal Alignment

Neurosurgery 68:1309–1316, 2011. DOI:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820b51f3

Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine has received increased attention in the literature as an important determinant of clinical outcomes after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Surgeons use parallel or lordotically fashioned grafts depending on preference or simple availability.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively assess and compare cervical sagittal alignment and clinical outcome when lordotic or parallel allografts were used for fusion.

METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study that enrolled 122 patients was performed. The mean follow-up was 37.5 months (range, 12-54 months).

RESULTS: The mean postoperative cervical sagittal alignment was 19 (range, 27-36) and 18 (range, 27-37) in the lordotic and parallel graft patient groups, respectively. The mean segmental sagittal alignment was 6 (range, 24-19) and 7 (range, 23-19) in the lordotic and parallel graft patient groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcome scores between the lordotic and parallel graft patient groups. However, patients who had maintained or improved segmental sagittal alignment, regardless of graft type, achieved a higher degree of improvement in Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary and Neck Disability Index scores. This was statistically significant (P , .038).

CONCLUSION: The use of lordotically shaped allografts does not increase cervical/ segmental sagittal alignment or improve clinical outcomes. Maintaining a consistent segmental sagittal alignment or increasing segmental lordosis was related to a higher degree of improvement in clinical outcomes.

Proudly powered by WordPress