Long-segment posterior cervical decompression and fusion: does caudal level affect revision rate?

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia; and
  • | 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) is a commonly performed procedure to address cervical myelopathy. A significant number of these patients require revision surgery for adjacent-segment disease (ASD) or pseudarthrosis. Currently, there is no consensus among spine surgeons on the inclusion of proximal thoracic spine instrumentation. This study investigates the benefits of thoracic extension in long-segment cervical fusions and the potential drawbacks. The authors compare outcomes in long-segment subaxial cervical fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy with caudal vertebral levels of C6, C7, and T1.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis identified 369 patients who underwent PCDF. Patients were grouped by caudal fusion level. Reoperation rates for ASD and pseudarthrosis, infection, and blood loss were examined. Data were analyzed with chi-square, 1-way ANOVA, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

The total reoperation rate for symptomatic pseudarthrosis or ASD was 4.8%. Reoperation rates, although not significant, were lower in the C3–6 group (2.6%, vs 8.3% for C3–7 and 3.8% for C3–T1; p = 0.129). Similarly, rates of infection were lower in the shorter-segment fusion without achieving statistical significance (2.6% for C3–6, vs 5.6% for C3–7 and 5.5% for C3–T1; p = 0.573). The mean blood loss was documented as 104, 125, and 224 mL for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the lack of statistical difference in reoperation rates for long-segment cervical fusions ending at C6, C7, or T1, shorter fusions in high-risk surgical candidates or elderly patients may be performed without higher rates of reoperation.

ABBREVIATIONS

ASD = adjacent-segment disease; LOS = length of stay; PCDF = posterior cervical decompression and fusion.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Kevin Hines: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA. kevin.hines@jefferson.edu.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online April 23, 2021; DOI: 10.3171/2020.10.SPINE201385.

Disclosures Dr. Schroeder is a consultant for Stryker, Zimmer, Astura, Medtronic, Teledoc, WK, AO Spine, and Bioventus.

  • 1

    Fehlings MG, Barry S, Kopjar B, et al. . Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study in 264 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2013;38(26):22472252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Youssef JA, Heiner AD, Montgomery JR, et al. . Outcomes of posterior cervical fusion and decompression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2019;19(10):17141729.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Liu CY, Zygourakis CC, Yoon S, et al. . Trends in utilization and cost of cervical spine surgery using the National Inpatient Sample database, 2001 to 2013. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2017;42(15):E906E913.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Vonck CE, Tanenbaum JE, Smith GA, et al. . National trends in demographics and outcomes following cervical fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Global Spine J. 2018;8(3):244253.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Cho SK, Riew KD. Adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(1):311.

  • 6

    Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Kurd MF, et al. . Is it necessary to extend a multilevel posterior cervical decompression and fusion to the upper thoracic spine? Spine. (Phila Pa 1976).2016;41(23):18451849.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Truumees E, Singh D, Geck MJ, Stokes JK. Should long-segment cervical fusions be routinely carried into the thoracic spine? A multicenter analysis. Spine J. 2018;18(5):782787.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Auerbach J, Cho W, Sehn J, et al. . Crossing the cervico-thoracic junction in long posterior cervical fusions reduces the rate of symptomatic adjacent segment breakdown. Paper presented at: NASS 26th Annual Meeting;November 2, 2011;Chicago, IL.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Badiee RK, Mayer R, Pennicooke B, et al. . Complications following posterior cervical decompression and fusion: a review of incidence, risk factors, and prevention strategies. J Spine Surg. 2020;6(1):323333.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Lee DH, Cho JH, Jung JI, et al. . Does stopping at C7 in long posterior cervical fusion accelerate the symptomatic breakdown of cervicothoracic junction?. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0217792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Yang JS, Buchowski JM, Verma V. Construct type and risk factors for pseudarthrosis at the cervicothoracic junction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2015;40(11):E613E617.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Hashimoto K, Aizawa T, Kanno H, Itoi E. Adjacent segment degeneration after fusion spinal surgery—a systematic review. Int Orthop. 2019;43(4):987993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Goyal A, Akhras A, Wahood W, et al. . Should multilevel posterior cervical fusions involving C7 cross the cervicothoracic junction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:588595.e5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Chan AK, Badiee RK, Rivera J, et al. . Crossing the cervicothoracic junction during posterior cervical fusion for myelopathy is associated with superior radiographic parameters but similar clinical outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(5):10161024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Fayed I, Toscano DT, Triano MJ, et al. . Crossing the cervicothoracic junction during posterior cervical decompression and fusion: is it necessary?. Neurosurgery. 2020;86(6):E544E550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Steinmetz MP, Miller J, Warbel A, et al. . Regional instability following cervicothoracic junction surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(4):278284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Woodroffe RW, Helland LC, Grossbach AJ, et al. . Risk factors associated with reoperation in posterior cervical fusions: a large-scale retrospective analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;195:105828.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Xia Y, Xu R, Kosztowski TA, et al. . Reoperation for proximal adjacent segment pathology in posterior cervical fusion constructs that fuse to C2 vs C3. Neurosurgery. 2019;85(3):E520E526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Ray WZ, Ravindra VM, Jost GF, et al. . Cost effectiveness of subaxial fusion—lateral mass screws versus transarticular facet screws. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;33(1):E14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Jaquith BP, Chase A, Flinn P, et al. . Screws versus hooks: implant cost and deformity correction in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop. 2012;6(2):137143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 773 773 90
Full Text Views 123 123 31
PDF Downloads 97 97 40
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0