Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Christopher Michael x
  • Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine x
  • By Author: Steinmetz, Michael P. x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Michael P. Steinmetz, Christopher D. Kager and Edward C. Benzel

Object. Cervical kyphotic deformation may develop after surgery involving either the ventral or dorsal approach. Regardless of the cause, the development of a cervical kyphotic deformity should be avoided, if possible, and corrected if present, when appropriate. The authors describe their experience with a technique for the ventral correction of iatrogenic (postoperative) cervical kyphosis.

Methods. A retrospective review of cases involving correction of postoperative iatrogenic cervical kyphosis via an ventral approach was performed. The authors conducted an ventral approach to kyphosis correction. The procedure required specific head positioning (in extension), convergent distraction pins, and an ventrally placed implant (axially dynamic when appropriate) with multiple points of fixation including at least one point of intermediate fixation. The pre- and postoperative sagittal angle and clinical status were evaluated.

During a nearly 14-month period, 12 patients met the inclusion criteria. Ten patients underwent a minimum of 6 months of follow up. They comprised the study population. Most patients presented with mechanical neck pain as part of their symptom profile. The mean magnitude of deformity correction (pre- to postoperative) was 20° of lordosis. The mean postoperative sagittal angle was 6° of lordosis. The mean change in the sagittal angle during the follow-up period was 2.2° of lordosis.

Conclusions. The ventral approach to correction of cervical deformity led to the achievement of lordosis in all but one patient. This posture was effectively maintained during the follow-up period. All patients exhibited improvement postoperatively; three experienced complete resolution of their preoperative symptoms. When symptoms are related to postsurgical kyphosis, deformity correction should be considered. Such a procedure may be performed effectively via an ventral approach in most circumstances.

Restricted access

David E. Gwinn, Christopher A. Iannotti, Edward C. Benzel and Michael P. Steinmetz

Object

Analysis of cervical sagittal deformity in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) requires a thorough clinical and radiographic evaluation to select the most appropriate surgical approach. Angular radiographic measurements, which are commonly used to define sagittal deformity, may not be the most appropriate to use for surgical planning. The authors present a simple straight-line method to measure effective spinal canal lordosis and analyze its reliability. Furthermore, comparisons of this measurement to traditional angular measurements of sagittal cervical alignment are made in regards to surgical planning in patients with CSM.

Methods

Twenty preoperative lateral cervical digital radiographs of patients with CSM were analyzed by 3 independent observers on 3 separate occasions using a software measurement program. Sagittal measurements included C2–7 angles utilizing the Cobb and posterior tangent methods, as well as a straight-line method to measure effective spinal canal lordosis from the dorsal-caudal aspect of the C2–7 vertebral bodies. Analysis of variance for repeated measures or Cohen 3-way (kappa) correlation coefficient analysis was performed as appropriate to calculate the intra- and interobserver reliability for each parameter. Discrepancies in angular and effective lordosis measurements were analyzed.

Results

Intra- and interobserver reliability was excellent (intraclass coefficient > 0.75, kappa > 0.90) utilizing all 3 techniques. Four discrepancies between angular and effective lordotic measurements occurred in which images with a lordotic angular measurement did not have lordosis within the ventral spinal canal. These discrepancies were caused by either spondylolisthesis or dorsally projecting osteophytes in all cases.

Conclusions

Although they are reliable, traditional methods used to make angular measurements of sagittal cervical spine alignment do not take into account ventral obstructions to the spinal cord. The effective lordosis measurement method provides a simple and reliable means of determining clinically significant lordosis because it accounts for both overall alignment of the cervical spine as well as impinging structures ventral to the spinal cord. This method should be considered for use in the treatment of patients with CSM.

Full access

Robert G. Whitmore, Jill N. Curran, Zarina S. Ali, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Robert F. Heary, Michael G. Kaiser, Anthony L. Asher, Neil R. Malhotra, Joseph S. Cheng, John Hurlbert, Justin S. Smith, Subu N. Magge, Michael P. Steinmetz, Daniel K. Resnick and Zoher Ghogawala

OBJECT

The authors have established a multicenter registry to assess the efficacy and costs of common lumbar spinal procedures using prospectively collected outcomes. Collection of these data requires an extensive commitment of resources from each site. The aim of this study was to determine whether outcomes data from shorter-interval follow-up could be used to accurately estimate long-term outcome following lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

An observational prospective cohort study was completed at 13 academic and community sites. Patients undergoing single-level lumbar discectomy for treatment of disc herniation were included. SF-36 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) data were calculated using SF-6D utility scores. Correlations among outcomes at each follow-up time point were tested using the Spearman rank correlation test.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight patients were enrolled over 1 year. Their mean age was 46 years (49% female). Eleven patients (7.4%) required a reoperation by 1 year postoperatively. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 80.4%. Lumbar discectomy was associated with significant improvements in ODI and SF-36 scores (p < 0.0001) and with a gain of 0.246 QALYs over the 1-year study period. The greatest gain occurred between baseline and 3-month follow-up and was significantly greater than improvements obtained between 3 and 6 months or 6 months and 1 year(p < 0.001). Correlations between 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes were similar, suggesting that 3-month data may be used to accurately estimate 1-year outcomes for patients who do not require a reoperation. Patients who underwent reoperation had worse outcomes scores and nonsignificant correlations at all time points.

CONCLUSIONS

This national spine registry demonstrated successful collection of high-quality outcomes data for spinal procedures in actual practice. Three-month outcome data may be used to accurately estimate outcome at future time points and may lower costs associated with registry data collection. This registry effort provides a practical foundation for the acquisition of outcome data following lumbar discectomy.