Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 12 items for

  • Author or Editor: Hsuan-Kan Chang x
  • By Author: Chang, Peng-Yuan x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Peng-Yuan Chang, Hsuan-Kan Chang and Jau-Ching Wu

Free access

Hsuan-Kan Chang, Chih-Chang Chang, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Jau-Ching Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang, Li-Yu Fay, Peng-Yuan Chang, Ching-Lan Wu and Henrich Cheng

OBJECTIVE

Many reports have successfully demonstrated that cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) can preserve range of motion after 1- or 2-level discectomy. However, few studies have addressed the extent of changes in segmental mobility after CDA or their clinical correlations.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent 1-level CDA were retrospectively reviewed. Indications for surgery were medically intractable degenerative disc disease and spondylosis. Clinical outcomes, including visual analog scale (VAS)–measured neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were analyzed. Radiographic outcomes, including C2–7 Cobb angle, the difference between pre- and postoperative C2–7 Cobb angle (ΔC2–7 Cobb angle), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), the difference between pre- and postoperative SVA (ΔSVA), segmental range of motion (ROM), and the difference between pre- and postoperative ROM (ΔROM), were assessed for their association with clinical outcomes. All patients underwent CT scanning, by which the presence and severity of heterotopic ossification (HO) were determined during the follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients (mean age 45.6 ± 9.33 years) underwent a 1-level CDA (Prestige LP disc) and were followed up for a mean duration of 27.7 ± 8.76 months. All clinical outcomes, including VAS, NDI, and JOA scores, improved significantly after surgery. Preoperative and postoperative ROM values were similar (mean 9.5° vs 9.0°, p > 0.05) at each indexed level. The mean changes in segmental mobility (ΔROM) were −0.5° ± 6.13°. Patients with increased segmental mobility after surgery (ΔROM > 0°) had a lower incidence of HO and HO that was less severe (p = 0.048) than those whose ΔROM was < 0°. Segmental mobility (ROM) was significantly lower in patients with higher HO grade (p = 0.012), but it did not affect the clinical outcomes. The preoperative and postoperative C2–7 Cobb angles and SVA remained similar. The postoperative C2–7 Cobb angles, SVA, ΔC2–7 Cobb angles, and ΔSVA were not correlated to clinical outcomes after CDA.

CONCLUSIONS

Segmental mobility (as reflected by the mean ROM) and overall cervical alignment (i.e., mean SVA and C2–7 Cobb angle) had no significant impact on clinical outcomes after 1-level CDA. Patients with increased segmental mobility (ΔROM > 0°) had significantly less HO and similarly improved clinical outcomes than those with decreased segmental mobility (ΔROM < 0°).

Free access

Hsuan-Kan Chang, Huang-Chou Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Li-Yu Fay, Peng-Yuan Chang, Ching-Lan Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang and Henrich Cheng

OBJECT

The aim of this paper was to investigate the risk of recurrence of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in patients with scoliosis who underwent microdiscectomy.

METHODS

A series of consecutive patients who underwent microdiscectomy for LDH was retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were young adults younger than 40 years who received microdiscectomy for symptomatic 1-level LDH. An exclusion criterion was any previous spinal surgery, including fusion or correction of scoliosis. The patients were divided into 2 groups: those with scoliosis and those without scoliosis. The demographic data in the 2 groups were similar. All medical records and clinical and radiological evaluations were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients who underwent 1-level microdiscectomy for LDH were analyzed. During the mean follow-up of 24.6 months, 6 patients (10.3%) experienced a recurrence of LDH with variable symptoms. The recurrence rate was significantly higher among the scoliosis group than the nonscoliosis group (33.3% vs 2.3%, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the recurrence-free interval in the scoliosis group was short.

CONCLUSIONS

Young adults (< 40 years) with uncorrected scoliosis are at higher risk of recurrent LDH after microdiscectomy.

Full access

Peng-Yuan Chang, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang, Li-Yu Fay, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Ching-Lan Wu and Henrich Cheng

OBJECTIVE

Several large-scale clinical trials demonstrate the efficacy of 1- and 2-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the subaxial cervical spine, while other studies reveal that during physiological neck flexion, the C4–5 and C5–6 discs account for more motion than the C3–4 level, causing more DDD. This study aimed to compare the results of CDA at different levels.

METHODS

After a review of the medical records, 94 consecutive patients who underwent single-level CDA were divided into the C3–4 and non-C3–4 CDA groups (i.e., those including C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7). Clinical outcomes were measured using the visual analog scale for neck and arm pain and by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. Postoperative range of motion (ROM) and heterotopic ossification (HO) were determined by radiography and CT, respectively.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients (93.6%; mean age 45.62 ± 10.91 years), including 41 (46.6%) female patients, underwent a mean follow-up of 4.90 ± 1.13 years. There were 11 patients in the C3–4 CDA group and 77 in the non-C3–4 CDA group. Both groups had significantly improved clinical outcomes at each time point after the surgery. The mean preoperative (7.75° vs 7.03°; p = 0.58) and postoperative (8.18° vs 8.45°; p = 0.59) ROMs were similar in both groups. The C3–4 CDA group had significantly greater prevalence (90.9% vs 58.44%; p = 0.02) and higher severity grades (2.27 ± 0.3 vs 0.97 ± 0.99; p = 0.0001) of HO.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CDA at C3–4 was infrequent, the improved clinical outcomes of CDA were similar at C3–4 to that in the other subaxial levels of the cervical spine at the approximately 5-year follow-ups. In this Asian population, who had a propensity to have ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, there was more HO formation in patients who received CDA at the C3–4 level than in other subaxial levels of the cervical spine. While the type of artificial discs could have confounded the issue, future studies with more patients are required to corroborate the phenomenon.

Full access

Peng-Yuan Chang, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang, Li-Yu Fay, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Ching-Lan Wu and Henrich Cheng

OBJECTIVE

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been demonstrated to be as safe and effective as anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the management of 1- and 2-level degenerative disc disease (DDD). However, there has been a lack of data to address the fundamental discrepancy between the two surgeries (CDA vs ACDF), and preservation versus elimination of motion, in the management of cervical myelopathy associated with congenital cervical stenosis (CCS). Although younger patients tend to benefit more from motion preservation, it is uncertain if CCS caused by multilevel DDD can be treated safely with CDA.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent 3-level anterior cervical discectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age less than 50 years, CCS (Pavlov ratio ≤ 0.82), symptomatic myelopathy correlated with DDD, and stenosis limited to 3 levels of the subaxial cervical (C3–7) spine. Exclusion criteria were ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, previous posterior decompression surgery (e.g., laminoplasty or laminectomy), osteoporosis, previous trauma, or other rheumatic diseases that might have caused the cervical myelopathy. All these patients who underwent 3-level discectomy were divided into 2 groups according to the strategies of management: preservation or elimination of motion (the hybrid-CDA group and the ACDF group). The hybrid-CDA group underwent 2-level CDA plus 1-level ACDF, whereas the ACDF group underwent 3-level ACDF. Clinical assessment was measured by the visual analog scales (VAS) for neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and Nurick grades. Radiographic outcomes were measured using dynamic radiographs for evaluation of range of motion (ROM).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients, with a mean (± SD) age of 44.57 ± 5.10 years, were included in the final analysis. There was a male predominance in this series (78.4%, 29 male patients), and the mean follow-up duration was 2.37 ± 1.60 years. There were 20 patients in the hybrid-CDA group, and 17 in the ACDF group. Both groups demonstrated similar clinical improvement at 2 years' follow-up. These patients with 3-level stenosis experienced significant improvement after either type of surgery (hybrid-CDA and ACDF). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups at each of the follow-up visits postoperatively. The preoperative ROM over the operated subaxial levels was similar between both groups (21.9° vs 21.67°; p = 0.94). Postoperatively, the hybrid-CDA group had significantly greater ROM (10.65° vs 2.19°; p < 0.001) than the ACDF group. Complications, adverse events, and reoperations in both groups were similarly low.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid-CDA yielded similar clinical improvement to 3-level ACDF in patients with myelopathy caused by CCS. In this relatively young group of patients, hybrid-CDA demonstrated significantly more ROM than 3-level ACDF without adjacent-segment disease (ASD) at 2 years' follow-up. Therefore, hybrid-CDA appears to be an acceptable option in the management of CCS. The strategy of motion preservation yielded similar improvements of cervical myelopathy to motion elimination (i.e., ACDF) in patients with CCS, while the theoretical benefit of reducing ASD required further validation.

Full access

Peng-Yuan Chang, Yu-Shu Yen, Jau-Ching Wu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Li-Yu Fay, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Ching-Lan Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang and Henrich Cheng

OBJECT

Although anterior odontoidectomy has been widely accepted as a procedure for decompression of the craniovertebral junction (CVJ), postoperative biomechanical instability has not been well addressed. There is a paucity of data on the necessity for and choice of fixation.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of consecutively treated patients with basilar invagination who underwent anterior odontoidectomy and various types of posterior fixation. Posterior fixation included 1 of 3 kinds of constructs: occipitocervical (OC) fusion with atlantoaxial (AA) fixation, OC fusion without AA fixation, or AA-only (without OC) fixation. On the basis of the use or nonuse of AA fixation, these patients were assigned to either the AA group, in which the posterior fixation surgery involved both the atlas and axis simultaneously, regardless of whether the patient underwent OC fusion, or the non-AA group, in which the OC fusion construct spared the atlas, axis, or both. Clinical outcomes and neurological function were compared. Radiological results at each time point (i.e., before and after odontoidectomy and after fixation) were assessed by calculating the triangular area causing ventral indentation of the brainstem in the CVJ.

RESULTS

Data obtained in 14 consecutively treated patients with basilar invagination were analyzed in this series; the mean follow-up time was 5.75 years. The mean age was 53.58 years; there were 7 males and 7 females. The AA and non-AA groups consisted of 7 patients each. The demographic data of both groups were similar. Overall, there was significant improvement in neurological function after the operation (p = 0.03), and there were no differences in the postoperative Nurick grades between the 2 groups (p = 1.00). According to radiological measurements, significant decompression of the ventral brainstem was achieved stepwise in both groups by anterior odontoidectomy and posterior fixation; the mean ventral triangular area improved from 3.00 ± 0.86 cm2 to 2.08 ± 0.51 cm2 to 1.68 ± 0.59 cm2 (before and after odontoidectomy and after fixation, respectively; p < 0.05). The decompression gained by odontoidectomy (i.e., reduction of the ventral triangular area) was similar in the AA and non-AA groups (0.66 ± 0.42 cm2 vs 1.17 ± 1.42 cm2, respectively; p = 0.38). However, the decompression achieved by posterior fixation was significantly greater in the AA group than in the non-AA group (0.64 ± 0.39 cm2 vs 0.17 ± 0.16 cm2, respectively; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior odontoidectomy alone provides significant decompression at the CVJ. Adjuvant posterior fixation further enhances the extent of decompression after the odontoidectomy. Moreover, posterior fixation that involves AA fixation yields significantly more decompression of the ventral brainstem than OC fusion that spares AA fixation.

Full access

Chun-Hao Wang, Peng-Yuan Chang, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang, Li-Yu Fay, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Ching-Lan Wu and Henrich Cheng

Free access

Chao-Hung Kuo, Peng-Yuan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Li-Yu Fay, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Henrich Cheng and Wen-Cheng Huang

OBJECTIVE

In the past decade, dynamic stabilization has been an emerging option of surgical treatment for lumbar spondylosis. However, the application of this dynamic construct for mild spondylolisthesis and its clinical outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the management of single-level spondylolisthesis at L4–5.

METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed 91 consecutive patients with Meyerding Grade I spondylolisthesis at L4–5 who were managed with surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: DDS and MI-TLIF. The DDS group was composed of patients who underwent standard laminectomy and the DDS system. The MI-TLIF group was composed of patients who underwent MI-TLIF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at each time point of evaluation. Evaluations included radiographs and CT scans for every patient for 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients with L4–5 spondylolisthesis completed the follow-up of more than 2 years and were included in the analysis (follow-up rate of 94.5%). There were 64 patients in the DDS group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group, and the overall mean follow-up was 32.7 months. Between the 2 groups, there were no differences in demographic data (e.g., age, sex, and body mass index) or preoperative clinical evaluations (e.g., visual analog scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores). The mean estimated blood loss of the MI-TLIF group was lower, whereas the operation time was longer compared with the DDS group (both p < 0.001). For both groups, clinical outcomes were significantly improved at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery compared with preoperative clinical status. Moreover, there were no differences between the 2 groups in clinical outcomes at each evaluation time point. Radiological evaluations were also similar and the complication rates were equally low in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At 32.7 months postoperation, the clinical and radiological outcomes of DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. DDS might be an alternative to standard arthrodesis in mild lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, unlike fusion, dynamic implants have issues of wearing and loosening in the long term. Thus, the comparable results between the 2 groups in this study require longer follow-up to corroborate.

Free access

Li-Yu Fay, Peng-Yuan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Wen-Cheng Huang, Chun-Hao Wang, Tzu-Yun Tsai, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Ching-Lan Wu and Henrich Cheng

OBJECTIVE

Dynamic stabilization devices are designed to stabilize the spine while preserving some motion. However, there have been reports demonstrating limited motion at the instrumented level of the lumbar spine after Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS). The causes of this limited motion and its actual effects on outcomes after DDS remain elusive. In this study, the authors investigate the incidence of unintended facet arthrodesis after DDS and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 80 consecutive patients with 1- or 2-level lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent laminectomy and DDS. All medical records, radiological data, and clinical evaluations were analyzed. Imaging studies included pre- and postoperative radiographs, MR images, and CT scans. Clinical outcomes were measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Furthermore, all patients had undergone postoperative CT for the detection of unintended arthrodesis of the facets at the indexed level, and range of motion was measured on standing dynamic radiographs.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients (87.5%) with a mean age of 64.0 years completed the minimum 24-month postoperative follow-up (mean duration 29.9 months). Unintended facet arthrodesis at the DDS instrumented level was demonstrated by CT in 38 (54.3%) of the 70 patients. The mean age of patients who had facet arthrodesis was 9.8 years greater than that of the patients who did not (68.3 vs 58.5 years, p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including VAS back and leg pain, ODI, and JOA scores between patients with and without the unintended facet arthrodesis. Furthermore, those patients older than 60 years were more likely to have unintended facet arthrodesis (OR 12.42) and immobile spinal segments (OR 2.96) after DDS. Regardless of whether unintended facet arthrodesis was present or not, clinical evaluations demonstrated improvement in all patients (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

During the follow-up of more than 2 years, unintended facet arthrodesis was demonstrated in 54.3% of the patients who underwent 1- or 2-level DDS. Older patients (age > 60 years) were more likely to have unintended facet arthrodesis and subsequent immobile spinal segments. However, unintended facet arthrodesis did not affect the clinical outcomes during the study period. Further evaluations are needed to clarify the actual significance of this phenomenon.