Comparison of clinical outcomes between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level cervical spondylosis: a 10-year follow-up study

The Spine Journal 23 (2023) 361−368

The theoretical advantage of cervical disc arthroplasty includes preserved motion at the cervical level, which may reduce degeneration of the adjacent segments. The long-term follow-up results are still controversial.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to retrospectively study the long-term efficacy and complications of cervical disc arthroplasty using a single commercially-available device in a single center.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a propensity-score matched cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE: This study enrolled 148 single-level cervical degenerative disease patients from January 2009 to March 2012. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 39 patients remained in the ACDF or ACDR groups.

OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were neurological functions (Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Japan Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores), radiographic evaluations (cervical curvature, operative segment range of motion, degenerative condition of adjacent segments, heterotopic ossification (HO) of the surgical segment), and complications.

METHODS: NDI and JOA scores were used to evaluate patient neurological functions. Cervical curvature (C2-C7 Cobb angle) and operative segment range of motion (ROM) were compared between the two groups. Grading criteria for osteophyte formation were used to evaluate the degenerative condition of adjacent segments. HO after ACDR was graded according to the McAfee grading method.

RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 119.3 §17.2 months. Satisfactory improvements in neurological function were obtained for both the ACDR and ACDF groups. There were no significant differences in VAS or NDI scores between the two groups. In the ACDR group, the ROM of the operative segment increased from 6.7 §4.3˚ before the operation to 8.9 §3.5˚ on the second day after the operation (p<.001). The ROM of the operative segment was 8.1 §4.0˚ at the 1-year follow-up, 7.2 §3.6˚ at the 2-year follow-up, 5.7 §4.5˚ at the 5-year follow-up and 4.3 §3.9˚ at the last follow-up. ASD was more likely to develop in the caudal adjacent segments and progressed with the follow-up time. At the last follow-up, HO was present in 27 patients (69.23%), while high-grade HO (McAfee scores III and IV) was detected in 6 patients (15.38%).

CONCLUSIONS: Through nearly 10 years of follow-up, ACDR was as effective as ACDF for treating single-level degenerative cervical disc disease. However, HO and the role of ACDR in the protection of ASD remains to be further observed and followed up.

Do the newly proposed realignment targets for C2 and T1 slope bridge the gap between radiographic and clinical success in corrective surgery for adult cervical deformity?

J Neurosurg Spine 37:368–375, 2022

Surgical correction of cervical deformity (CD) has been associated with superior alignment and functional outcomes. It has not yet been determined whether baseline or postoperative T1 slope (T1S) and C2 slope (C2S) correlate with health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) metrics and radiographic complications, such as distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) and distal junctional failure (DJF). The objective of this study was to determine the impact of T1S and C2S deformity severity on HRQoL metrics and DJF development in patients with CD who underwent a cervical fusion procedure.

METHODS All operative CD patients with upper instrumented vertebra above C7 and preoperative (baseline) and up to 2-year postoperative radiographic and HRQoL data were included. CD was defined as meeting at least one of the following radiographic parameters: C2–7 lordosis < −15°, TS1–cervical lordosis mismatch > 35°, segmental cervical kyphosis > 15° across any 3 vertebrae between C2 and T1, C2–7 sagittal vertical axis > 4 cm, McGregor’s slope > 20°, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°. Spearman’s rank-order correlation and linear regression analysis assessed the impact of T1S and C2S on HRQoL metrics (Neck Disability Index [NDI], modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] scale, EuroQOL 5-Dimension Questionnaire [EQ-5D] visual analog scale [VAS] score, and numeric rating scale [NRS]–neck) and complications (DJK, DJF, reoperation). Logistic regression and a conditional inference tree (CIT) were used to determine radiographic thresholds for achieving optimal clinical outcome, defined as meeting good clinical outcome criteria (≥ 2 of the following: NDI < 20 or meeting minimal clinically important difference, mild myelopathy [mJOA score ≥ 14], and NRS-neck ≤ 5 or improved by ≥ 2 points), not undergoing reoperation, or developing DJF or mechanical complication by 2 years.

RESULTS One hundred five patients with CD met inclusion criteria. By surgical approach, 14.7% underwent an anterioronly approach, 46.1% a posterior-only approach, and 39.2% combined anterior and posterior approaches. The mean baseline radiographic parameters were T1S 28.3° ± 14.5° and C2S 25.9° ± 17.5°. Significant associations were found between 3-month C2S and mJOA score (r = −0.248, p = 0.034), NDI (r = 0.399, p = 0.001), EQ-5D VAS (r = −0.532, p < 0.001), NRS-neck (r = 0.239, p = 0.040), and NRS-back (r = 0.264, p = 0.021), while significant correlation was also found between 3-month T1S and mJOA score (r = −0.314, p = 0.026), NDI (r = 0.445, p = 0.001), EQ-5D VAS (r = −0.347, p = 0.018), and NRS-neck (r = 0.269, p = 0.049). A significant correlation was also found between development of DJF and 3-month C2S (odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.1, p = 0.015) as well as for T1S (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.01–1.1, p = 0.023). Logistic regression with CIT identified thresholds for optimal outcome by 2 years: optimal 3-month T1S < 26° (OR 5.6) and C2S < 10° (OR 10.4), severe 3-month T1S < 45.5° (OR 0.2) and C2S < 38.0° (no patient above this threshold achieved optimal outcome; all p < 0.05). Patients below both optimal thresholds achieved rates of 0% for DJK and DJF, and 100% met optimal outcome.

CONCLUSIONS The severity of CD, defined by T1S and C2S at baseline and especially at 3 months, can be predictive of postoperative functional improvement and occurrence of worrisome complications in patients with CD, necessitating the use of thresholds in surgical planning to achieve optimal outcomes.

Development of the Subdural Hematoma in the Elderly (SHE) score to predict mortality

J Neurosurg 132:1616–1622, 2020

The purpose of this study was to describe the development of a novel prognostic score, the Subdural Hematoma in the Elderly (SHE) score. The SHE score is intended to predict 30-day mortality in elderly patients (those > 65 years of age) with an acute, chronic, or mixed-density subdural hematoma (SDH) after minor, or no, prior trauma.

METHODS The authors used the Prognosis Research Strategy group methods to develop the clinical prediction model. The training data set included patients with acute, chronic, and mixed-density SDH. Based on multivariate analyses from a large data set, in addition to review of the extant literature, 3 components to the score were selected: age, admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, and SDH volume. Patients are given 1 point if they are over 80 years old, 1 point for an admission GCS score of 5–12, 2 points for an admission GCS score of 3–4, and 1 point for SDH volume > 50 ml. The sum of points across all categories determines the SHE score.

RESULTS The 30-day mortality rate steadily increased as the SHE score increased for all SDH acuities. For patients with an acute SDH, the 30-day mortality rate was 3.2% for SHE score of 0, and the rate increased to 13.1%, 32.7%, 95.7%, and 100% for SHE scores of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The model was most accurate for acute SDH (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.94), although it still performed well for chronic (AUC = 0.80) and mixed-density (AUC = 0.87) SDH.

CONCLUSIONS The SHE score is a simple clinical grading scale that accurately stratifies patients’ risk of mortality based on age, admission GCS score, and SDH volume. Use of the SHE score could improve counseling of patients and their families, allow for standardization of clinical treatment protocols, and facilitate clinical research studies in SDH.

 

Impact of obesity on complications and outcomes: a comparison of fusion and nonfusion lumbar spine surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 26:158–162, 2017

Prior studies have shown obesity to be associated with higher complication rates but equivalent clinical outcomes following lumbar spine surgery. These findings have been reproducible across lumbar spine surgery in general and for lumbar fusion specifically. Nevertheless, surgeons seem inclined to limit the extent of surgery, perhaps opting for decompression alone rather than decompression plus fusion, in obese patients. The purpose of this study was to ascertain any difference in clinical improvement or complication rates between obese and nonobese patients following decompression alone compared with decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N 2 QOD), was queried for patients who had undergone decompression plus fusion (D+F group) versus decompression alone (D+0 group) for LSS and were stratified by a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m 2 (obese) or < 30 kg/m 2 (nonobese). Demographic, surgical, and health-related quality of life data were compared.

Results: In the nonobese cohort, 947 patients underwent decompression alone and 319 underwent decompression plus fusion. In the obese cohort, 844 patients had decompression alone and 337 had decompression plus fusion. There were no significant differences in the Oswestry Disability Index score or in leg pain improvement at 12 months when comparing decompression with fusion to decompression without fusion in either obese or nonobese cohorts. However, absolute improvement in back pain was less in the obese group when decompression alone had been performed. Blood loss and operative time were lowest in the nonobese D+0 cohort and were higher in obese patients with or without fusion. Obese patients had a longer hospital stay (4.1 days) than the nonobese patients (3.3 days) when fusion had been performed. In-hospital stay was similar in both obese and nonobese D+0 cohorts. No significant differences were seen in 30-day readmission rates among the 4 cohorts.

Conclusions: Consistent with the prior literature, equivalent clinical outcomes were found among obese and non-obese patients treated for LSS. In addition, no difference in clinical outcomes as related to the extent of the surgical procedure was observed between obese and nonobese patients. Within the D+0 group, the nonobese patients had slightly better back pain scores at 2 years postoperatively. There may be a higher blood product requirement in obese patients following spine surgery, as well as an extended hospital stay, when fusion is performed. While obesity may influence the decision for or against surgery, the data suggest that obesity should not necessarily alter the appropriate procedure for well-selected surgical candidates.

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.