Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Stephen Bartol x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Colin P. McDonald, Victor Chang, Michael McDonald, Nicole Ramo, Michael J. Bey and Stephen Bartol

Object

Cervical arthroplasty with an artificial disc (AD) has emerged as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the management of cervical spondylosis. This study aims to provide 3D motion analysis data comparing patients after ACDF and AD replacement.

Methods

Ten patients who underwent C5–6 ACDF and 7 who underwent C5–6 AD replacement were enrolled. Using biplanar fluoroscopy and a model-based track technique (accurate up to 0.6 mm and 0.6°), motion analysis of axial rotation and flexion-extension of the neck was performed. Three nonoperative segments (C3–4, C4–5, and C6–7) were assessed for both intervertebral rotation (coronal, sagittal, and axial planes) and facet shear (anteroposterior and mediolateral).

Results

There was no difference in total neck motion comparing ACDF and AD replacement for neck extension (43.3° ± 10.2° vs 44.3° ± 12.6°, p = 0.866) and rotation (36.0° ± 6.5° vs 38.2° ± 9.3°, p = 0.576). For extension, when measured as a percentage of total neck motion, there was a greater amount of rotation at the nonoperated segments in the ACDF group than in the AD group (p = 0.003). When comparing specific motion segments, greater normalized rotation was seen in the ACDF group at C3–4 (33.2% ± 4.9% vs 26.8% ± 6.6%, p = 0.036) and C6–7 (28.5% ± 6.7% vs 20.5% ± 5.5%, p = 0.009) but not at C4–5 (33.5% ± 6.4% vs 31.8% ± 4.0%, p = 0.562). For neck rotation, greater rotation was observed at the nonoperative segments in the ACDF group than in the AD group (p = 0.024), but the differences between individual segments did not reach significance (p ≥ 0.146). Increased mediolateral facet shear was seen on neck extension with ACDF versus AD replacement (p = 0.008). Comparing each segment, C3–4 (0.9 ± 0.5 mm vs 0.4 ± 0.1 mm, p = 0.039) and C4–5 (1.0 ± 0.4 mm vs 0.5 ± 0.2 mm, p = 0.022) showed increased shear while C6–7 (1.0 ± 0.4 mm vs 1.0 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.767) did not.

Conclusions

This study illustrates increased motion at nonoperative segments in patients who have undergone ACDF compared with those who have undergone AD replacement. Further studies will be required to examine whether these changes contribute to adjacent-segment disease.

Free access

Victor Chang, Jason M. Schwalb, David R. Nerenz, Lisa Pietrantoni, Sharon Jones, Michelle Jankowski, Nancy Oja-Tebbe, Stephen Bartol and Muwaffak Abdulhak

OBJECT

Given the scrutiny of spine surgery by policy makers, spine surgeons are motivated to demonstrate and improve outcomes, by determining which patients will and will not benefit from surgery, and to reduce costs, often by reducing complications. Insurers are similarly motivated. In 2013, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network (BCN) established the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) as a Collaborative Quality Initiative (CQI). MSSIC is one of the newest of 21 other CQIs that have significantly improved—and continue to improve—the quality of patient care throughout the state of Michigan.

METHODS

MSSIC focuses on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, specifically indications such as stenosis, disk herniation, and degenerative disease. Surgery for tumors, traumatic fractures, deformity, scoliosis, and acute spinal cord injury are currently not within the scope of MSSIC. Starting in 2014, MSSIC consisted of 7 hospitals and in 2015 included another 15 hospitals, for a total of 22 hospitals statewide. A standardized data set is obtained by data abstractors, who are funded by BCBSM/BCN. Variables of interest include indications for surgery, baseline patient-reported outcome measures, and medical history. These are obtained within 30 days of surgery. Outcome instruments used include the EQ-5D general health state score (0 being worst and 100 being the best health one can imagine) and EQ-5D-3 L. For patients undergoing lumbar surgery, a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for leg and back pain and the Oswestry Disability Index for back pain are collected. For patients undergoing cervical surgery, a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for arm and neck pain, Neck Disability Index, and the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score are collected. Surgical details, postoperative hospital course, and patient-reported outcome measures are collected at 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year intervals.

RESULTS

As of July 1, 2015, a total of 6397 cases have been entered into the registry. This number reflects 4824 eligible cases with confirmed surgery dates. Of these 4824 eligible cases, 3338 cases went beyond the 120-day window and were considered eligible for the extraction of surgical details, 90-day outcomes, and adverse events. Among these 3338 patients, there are a total of 2469 lumbar cases, 862 cervical cases, and 7 combined procedures that were entered into the registry.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to functioning as a registry, MSSIC is also meant to be a platform for quality improvement with the potential for future initiatives and best practices to be implemented statewide in order to improve quality and lower costs. With its current rate of recruitment and expansion, MSSIC will provide a robust platform as a regional prospective registry. Its unique funding model, which is supported by BCBSM/BCN, will help ensure its longevity and viability, as has been observed in other CQIs that have been active for several years.

Free access

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