颈椎间盘置换与颈前路减压植骨融合治疗单节段颈椎病中期疗效的Meta分析

【摘要】 目的：通过和颈前路减压植骨融合（ACDF）术对比,评价颈椎间盘置换（cervical disc arthroplasty,CDA）治疗单节段颈椎病的中期疗效。方法：计算机检索2013年10月1日以前PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、维普中文科技期刊数据库（VIP）和万方数据库中关于CDA与ACDF比较治疗单节段颈椎病的随机对照试验（randomized controlled trials,RCT）且随访时间≥4年的文献,纳入文献的方法学质量采用改良Jadad量表评价,提取各研究中的术后末次随访时颈部功能障碍指数（neck disability index,NDI）、SF-36评分、颈痛和上肢痛VAS评分、神经功能改善率、手术节段活动度、手术节段和邻近节段再手术率、术后总并发症发生率等指标,并将这些研究的数据通过Review Manager 5.2软件进行Meta分析与综合。结果：共纳入7篇文献、1622例患者,随访时间4~5年,CDA组826例,ACDF组796例。7篇纳入文献的方法学质量评分为4~6分,其中4分2篇,5分3篇,6分2篇。Meta分析结果显示：CDA与ACDF比较,术后中期（术后4~5年）的神经功能改善率[相对危险度（RR）=1.04,95%CI（1.00,1.09）,P=0.07]、颈痛VAS评分[标准化均数差（SMD）=-0.12,95%CI（-0.27,0.04）,P=0.13] 和总并发症发生率[RR=1.06,95%CI（0.57,1.96）,P=0.86]差异无统计学意义。与ACDF比较,CDA术后中期SF-36评分较优[SMD=0.24,95%CI（0.08,0.39）,P=0.003]、手术节段活动度较大[SMD=7.38,95%CI（5.87,8.89）,P<0.00001]、NDI较低[SMD=-0.26,95%CI（-0.40,-0.13）,P=0.0002]、上肢痛VAS评分较低[SMD=-0.17,95%CI（-0.33,0.02）,P=0.03]、手术节段再手术率较低[（RR=0.48,95%CI（0.31,0.75）,P=0.001]、邻近节段再手术率较低[RR=0.60,95%CI（0.37,0.98）,P=0.04]。结论：CDA治疗单节段颈椎病的中期疗效优于ACDF。     

两种颈前路手术方式治疗双节段颈椎病

[目的]比较两种颈前路术式治疗双节段颈椎病的疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2010~2014年52例双节段颈椎病患者的临床资料,其中颈前路椎体次全切减压+钛网植骨融合内固定术治疗29例(ACCF组),颈前路双节段椎间盘切除减压+Cage植骨融合内固定术治疗23例(ACDF组)。t检验比较两组平均失血量、平均手术时间、NDI评分。方差分析法比较术后JOA评分改善率、内固定沉降率。[结果]ACCF组平均随访时间(25±2.3)个月,ACDF组为(26±1.9)个月。两组患者神经症状均较术前明显改善,JOA评分及术后2年植骨沉降率差异无统计学意义。两组术中平均失血量、平均手术时间、术后2年NDI评分方面差异有统计学意义。平均失血量:ACCF组为(176±28.2)ml,ACDF组(65.7±16.7)ml,P=0.015;平均手术时间:ACCF组为(70±11.2)min,ACDF组(99±15.6)min,P=0.023;术后2年NDI评分:ACCF组为(9.3±3.3),ACDF组(5.2±1.1),P=0.019。[结论]除非出现病椎平面后方较大致压物,双节段ACDF组不能彻底减压的情况,双节段ACDF术式较单节段ACCF更具优势。     

颈椎间盘置换术与颈前路椎间融合术治疗双节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病疗效的Meta分析

目的 :系统评价颈椎间盘置换术(TDR)与颈前路椎间盘切除椎间植骨融合术(ACDF)治疗相邻两个节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病的疗效。方法:检索Pubmed、Medline、Embase等数据库,筛选应用两种手术方式治疗相邻两个节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病的前瞻性临床对照研究;各研究中观察组术式为TDR(TDR组),对照组术式为ACDF(ACDF组);两组病例数均不少于10例;随访时间均不少于2年;术后疗效评价指标至少包括以下指标中的一项:颈痛及上肢痛VAS评分(VAS),颈部功能障碍指数(NDI),健康调查简表SF-36评分(SF-36),术后不良事件(AE)等指标。采用Doowns-Black评分及NOS评分评价纳入研究的质量。结果:共纳入5篇英文文献,2篇为随机对照研究(RCT),3篇为前瞻性队列研究,研究质量Doowns-Black评分均在18分及以上,NOS评价前瞻性队列研究质量均为6星。共纳入593例患者,其中TDR组314例,ACDF组279例。经Meta分析合并效应指标,末次随访时颈痛VAS评分标准化均数差(SMD)及不良事件发生相对危险度(RR)两组比较无显著性差异(P0.05);TDR组上肢痛VAS评分、NDI评分、邻近上节段和下节段屈伸ROM、邻近节段退变低于ACDF组(P0.05),SF36-PCS躯体健康评分及手术节段屈伸ROM SMD高于ACDF组(P0.05)。结论 :相邻两个节段颈椎间盘退变性疾病行TDR的疗效较ACDF具有优势,安全性较高,但需要更多大样本随机对照研究以及更长时间的随访结果来验证。     

零切迹椎间融合器与钛板椎间融合器治疗多节段颈椎病的Meta分析

目的 :比较零切迹椎间融合器(Zero-p)与椎间融合器联合钛板固定(cage-plate)治疗多节段颈椎病(multilevel cervical spondylotic)临床疗效、放射学结果及并发症情况。方法 :计算机检索中国知网、万方数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、PubMed, Ovid,Medline数据库。中文关键词为:"零切迹椎间融合器"、"自稳型椎间融合器"、"锚定式椎间融合器"、"钉板内固定"、"Zero-p"、"ROI-C"、"ACDF"、"颈椎前路减压融合";英文检索词"Zero-p"、"Zero-profile"、"ROI-C"、"cage and plate"、"stand-alone anchored spacer"、"anchored cage"、‘‘anchored spacer"、"no-profile"、"ACDF"。由2名评价者严格按照纳入及排除标准进行文献筛选,收集对比Zero-p与cage联合钛板治疗多节段颈椎病的文献,并进行数据提取及质量评价。采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析,比较ACDF术中应用两种不同内固定材料治疗多节段颈椎病的临床疗效、影像学结果及并发症。结果:共纳入8篇高质量文献,共634例患者,零切迹组302例,cage+钛板组332例。Meta分析显示:零切迹组在手术时间[MD=-13.08,95%CI(-23.38,-2.78),P=0.01]、术中出血量[MD=-6.76,95%CI(-12.92,-0.61),P=0.03]与cage+钛板组比较差异具有统计学意义;两组JOA评分差异[MD=-0.14,95%CI(-0.36,0.09),P=0.23]、NDI评分差异[MD=-0.05,95%CI (-0.43,0.33),P=0.80]及手术节段融合率[RR=0.99,95%CI (0.95,1.04),P=0.78]均无统计学差异;零切迹组与cage+钛板组术后C2-7Cobb角[MD=-3.11,95%CI(-4.47,-1.74),P0.0001]及术后椎前软组织厚度[MD=-1.00,95%CI(-1.35,-0.65),P0.00001]差异有统计学意义;零切迹组术后吞咽困难发生率[RR=0.61, 95%CI(0.50,0.75),P0.00001]及术后影像学邻近节段退变发生率[RR=0.20,95%CI(0.06,0.66),P=0.008]均低于cage+钛板组;零切迹组术后融合器沉降发生率[RR=3.07,95%CI(1.73,5.47),P=0.0001]显著高于cage+钛板固定组。结论:两种内固定治疗多节段颈椎病的临床疗效相同,零切迹椎间融合器具有手术时间短、术中出血量少、吞咽困难及邻近节段退变发生率低等特点,但传统cage联合钛板固定在恢复颈椎生理曲度、防止融合器沉降方面更具优势。     

围手术期静脉应用抗纤维蛋白溶解药在脊柱手术中止血作用的Meta分析

目的:系统评价围手术期静脉应用抗纤维蛋白溶解药在脊柱手术中的止血作用。方法:计算机检索2016年6月1日以前Pub Med、Embase、Medline、Cochrane Library关于脊柱手术中围手术期静脉应用抗纤维蛋白溶解药的随机对照试验(randomized control Iedtrials,RCT)文献,纳入文献的方法学质量采用改良Jadad量表评价。抗纤维蛋白溶解药(antifibrinolytic agents,AA)包括氨甲环酸(tranexamic acid,TXA)和氨基己酸(epsilon aminocaproic acid,EACA);对照组(control group,CG)药物为Placebo。提取各研究中的总失血量、术中失血量、术后引流量、总输血量、术中输血事件、术后输血事件、手术时间与不良事件数据,并将这些研究的数据通过Review Manager 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入18篇文献、1571例患者。纳入文献的方法学质量由改良Jadad量表评价,9篇文献的研究质量评分为5分,6篇为4分,3篇为3分。纳入18篇研究均为RCT。Meta分析结果显示,共10项研究报道了围手术期总失血量情况:Placebo组高于TXA组[SMD=-0.95;95%CI:(-1.28,-0.62),P0.00001];Placebo组高于EACA组[SMD=-0.91;95%CI:(-1.24,-0.58),P0.00001];TXA与EACA组两组比较差异无统计学意义[SMD=0.13;95%CI:(-0.47,-0.73),P=0.67]。共13项研究报道了术中失血量情况:Placebo组高于TXA组[SMD=-0.47;95%CI:(-0.66,-0.29),P0.00001];Placebo组高于EACA组[SMD=-1.01;95%CI:(-1.56,-0.47),P0.0003];TXA组高于EACA组[SMD=0.47;95%CI:(0.13,0.81),P=0.007]。共8项研究报道了术后引流量情况:Placebo组高于TXA组[SMD=-0.74;95%CI:(-1.13,-0.34),P=0.0002];Placebo组高于EACA组[SMD=-0.80;95%CI:(-1.44,-0.16),P=0.01];TXA组与EACA组两组比较差异无统计学意义[SMD=0.06;95%CI:(-1.02,1.14),P=0.92]。共7项研究报道了总输血量情况:AA组少于CG组,两组比较差异具有统计学意义[SMD=-0.51;95%CI:(-0.67,-0.34),P0.00001]。共4项研究报道了术中输血事件,AA组与CG组两组比较差异无统计学意义[RR=0.91;95%CI:(0.68,1.21),P=0.52]。共6项研究报道了术后输血事件情况,AA组少于CG组,两组比较差异具有统计学意义[RR=0.44;95%CI:(0.31,0.62),P0.00001]。共8项研究报道了手术时间情况,AA组与CG组两组比较差异无统计学意义[SMD=-0.04;95%CI:(-0.21,0.14),P=0.69]。共3项研究报道了术后不良事件,AA组与CG组两组比较差异无统计学意义[RR=1.07;95%CI:(0.24,4.81),P=0.93]。结论:围手术期静脉应用抗纤维蛋白溶解药能够降低患者总失血量、术中失血量、术后引流量、总输血量及术后输血事件,但未能降低术中输血事件、手术时间及改善术后不良事件。     

颈椎前路减压人工颈椎间盘置换术与融合术治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的短期疗效比较

背景：颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术（ACDF）能够为有症状的颈椎病患者提供较好的治疗效果,但颈椎融合可导致相邻节段椎间盘内部应力增加,加速邻近节段椎间盘的退变。颈椎人工椎间盘置换术（ACDR）作为最具代表性的颈椎前路非融合技术,为颈椎间盘突出症的治疗提供了另外一种外科手段。目的：比较ACDR和ACDF治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法：2009年1月至2012年2月,61例单节段颈椎间盘突出症患者接受Discover人工颈椎间盘置换手术（置换组,26例）或ACDF手术（融合组,35例）。分别在术前,术后1周,术后3、6、12及24个月对患者进行疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、日本矫形外科协会（JOA）评分及影像学评估,同时记录患者并发症及二次手术情况。结果：最终,52例患者（融合组29例,置换组23例）获得平均15.3个月（12-24个月）随访。两组患者术后各随访时间点的颈痛、上肢痛VAS和JOA评分,较术前均有改善（P〈0.05）,但两组间无显著统计学差异（P〉0.05）。置换组术后手术节段及邻近节段屈伸活动度与术前比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。融合组融合成功率为90.5%。置换组中2例患者术后6个月时假体有〈3 mm的前移,l例术后发生脑脊液漏。融合组中1例患者发生邻椎病并接受二次手术治疗。结论：单节段Discover人工颈椎间盘置换术和ACDF均可明显缓解颈椎间盘突出症患者的症状。间盘置换还能减少手术邻近节段代偿活动度的增加,有望预防相邻节段退变的发生。     

手术干预与传统方法治疗多发性肋骨骨折随机对照研究的系统评价与Meta分析

目的对手术和传统方法治疗多发性肋骨骨折进行系统评价,对比其疗效。方法计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、万方数据库(Wanfang)、维普期刊数据库(VIP)、PubMed、OVID、EMbase、The Cochrane Library、Thieme及Springer Link数据库。收集有关手术和传统方法治疗多发性肋骨骨折的随机对照研究(RCT),检索时限为各数据库建库至2019年7月。对文献进行筛选、质量评价及数据提取。Meta分析采用RevMan 5.3软件。结果共纳入文献12篇,患者1039例。其中手术组512例,传统组527例。Meta分析显示:两组在肺部感染发生率[RR=0.41,99%CI(0.29,0.58),P<0.00001]、肺不张发生率[RR=0.24,99%CI(0.06,0.94),P=0.007]、呼吸机支持时间[SMD=-2.64,99%CI(-4.38,-0.91),P<0.0001]、住ICU时间[SMD=-1.33,99%CI(-2.26,-0.40),P=0.0002]、总体住院时间[SMD=-2.25,99%CI(-3.30,-1.19),P<0.00001]、胸壁畸形发生率[RR=0.08,99%CI(0.04,0.17),P<0.00001]等方面差异有统计学意义。在住院死亡率[RR=0.75,99%CI(0.23,2.46),P=0.53]、气管切开率[RR=0.69,99%CI(0.39,1.21),P=0.09]、呼吸机支持率[RR=0.65,99%CI(0.41,1.05),P=0.02]、胸腔引流时间[SMD=-2.58,99%CI(-6.41,1.25),P=0.08]等方面差异无统计学意义。结论手术治疗多发性肋骨骨折能够减少肺部并发症、缩短住院时间、降低胸壁畸形发生率,有利于患者快速康复和改善生活质量。     

颈椎人工间盘置换与前路减压融合术治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症的疗效

目的:探讨Mobi-C颈椎人工间盘置换(cervical artificial disc replacement,CADR)与传统颈椎前路减压融合术(anterior cervical decompression and fusion,ACDF)治疗颈椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法:对2009年6月至2012年6月收治的27例单节段颈椎间盘突出症患者进行回顾性分析,男18例,女9例,年龄30~62岁,平均46.7岁。其中12例采用CADR治疗(CADR组),15例采用ACDF治疗(ACDF组)。所有患者有颈肩部及上肢疼痛麻木,病程1~13个月,平均2.4个月。术前、术后1周、末次随访时均进行全面的临床评价和生活质量问卷调查。应用Odom标准评价术后疗效,采用视觉模拟疼痛量表(VAS)记录疼痛级别,用颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI)和健康状况调查问卷SF-36对患者生活质量进行综合评定。结果:27例患者无神经血管并发症发生,均获得随访,平均随访时间16个月(6~30个月)。术后1周CADR组优10例,良2例,ACDF组优5例,良10例,两组疗效差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.75,P=0.019);末次随访时CADR组优10例,良2例,ACDF组优12例,良3例,两组疗效差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.049,P=1.000)。术后1周及末次随访时两组患者的上肢VAS评分均明显缓解(P<0.05)。术后1周:CADR组颈部VAS评分由术前的3.58±0.79下降至0.58±0.51(P<0.05),NDI指数由术前的(23.42±6.36)分下降至(5.42±1.68)分(P<0.05),而ACDF组下降不明显。末次随访时:两组患者的颈部VAS评分、NDI指数及SF-36生活质量与术前比较均有明显改善(P<0.05)。结论:Mobi-C CADR保留了减压节段的运动,允许患者迅速恢复正常的活动,术后早期即可显示明显疗效,且疗效稳定维持,患者的生活质量明显提高。     

单开门椎管扩大成形术中保留单侧肌肉韧带复合体对临床疗效影响的Meta分析

目的 :通过Meta分析评估单开门椎管扩大成形术中保留单侧肌肉韧带复合体对临床疗效的影响。方法:对PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane、知网、万方、维普及CBM数据库进行检索,筛选出保留单侧肌肉韧带复合体的单开门椎管扩大成形术(改良组)与不保留单侧肌肉韧带复合体的单开门椎管扩大成形术(传统组)临床疗效的对比研究。统计各研究中手术时间、术中出血量,术后1年疼痛视觉模拟(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分、颈椎功能障碍指数(neck disability index,NDI)、轴性疼痛发生率、颈椎活动度、颈椎矢状位垂直距离(sagittal vertical axis,cSVA)、C5神经根麻痹发生率、日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分以及术后2年内颈椎曲度指数等指标。置信区间(confidence interval,CI)取95%,对于二分类变量型数据选用比值比(odds ratio,OR),对于连续性变量型数据选用标准化均数差(standardized mean difference,SMD)作为合并统计量。通过Revman 5.3.0进行分析,评价改良单开门椎管扩大成形术的优劣。结果:最终共11篇文献,905例患者纳入本研究。其中改良组手术时间[SMD=1.06,95%CI(0.20,1.92),P=0.02]较长,术中出血量[SMD=0.56,95%CI (0.40,1.09),P=0.04]较多,但术后1年VAS评分[SMD=-1.39,95%CI (-1.98,-0.80),P=0.00001]、NDI [SMD=-0.51,95%CI (-0.69,-0.33),P0.00001]、术后1年轴性疼痛的发生率[OR=0.42,95%CI(0.26,0.67),P=0.003]均小于传统组。改良组术后1年颈椎活动度[SMD=0.85,95%CI(0.64,1.06),P0.00001]大于传统组,术后1年cSVA[SMD=-2.33,95%CI(-3.84,-0.81),P=0.003]小于传统组;两组间术后1年C5神经根麻痹的发生率[OR=0.44,95%CI(0.18,1.06),P=0.07]和术后1年JOA评分[SMD=0.09,95%CI(-0.22,0.40),P=0.58]无统计学差异。改良组术后2年颈椎曲度指数[SMD=0.96,95%CI(0.68,1.24),P0.00001]大于传统组。结论:保留单侧肌肉韧带复合体的改良单开门术式在减少患者术后轴性疼痛的发生、保护颈椎活动功能及维持正常矢状位序列等方面均具有一定的优势,但相对于传统组而言其手术时间更长,术中出血量也更多。     

人工颈椎间盘置换术与前路植骨融合内固定术治疗颈椎退行性疾病的疗效比较

目的对比分析人工颈椎间盘置换术(ACDR)与颈椎前路植骨融合内固定术(ACDF)治疗颈椎退行性疾病患者的临床效果及对颈椎运动功能、邻近节段退变的影响。方法回顾性收集152例颈椎退行性疾病患者临床资料,根据选择手术方式不同分为ACDR组(n=53)和ACDF组(n=99);比较两组临床疗效以及对术后颈椎运动功能、邻近节段退变的影响。结果 ACDR组Odom分级优良率为84.91%,ACDF组为85.86%,组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时,两组VAS、NDI评分较术前明显降低(P0.05),JOA评分较术前明显升高(P0.05),且两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时,ACDR组颈椎整体曲度、手术节段曲度、邻近节段曲度与术前比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),而ACDF组颈椎整体活动度、手术节段活动度明显低于术前及ACDR组(P0.05),上、下邻近节段活动度明显高于术前及ACDR组(P0.05)。ACDR组ASDz发生率为13.21%,明显低于ACDF组的29.29%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDR与ACDF疗效相当,而前者有保留手术节段活动度、维持颈椎生物力学稳定的优势,能够有效减少邻近节段退变的发生。     

Mobility provocation radiostereometry in anterior cervical spine fusions

This study aimed to evaluate the use of mobility-provocation radiostereometry (RSA) in anterior cervical spine fusions and compare the results to deformation studies on the same patients and plain flexion-extension radiographs. Mobility-provocation RSA was used to evaluate anterior cervical spine fusions in 45 patients. The motions recorded at 3 and 12 months postoperatively were compared to RSA measurements of deformation of the fusion over time and to plain flexion-extension radiographs in the same patients taken 3 months postoperatively. Studies of rotations from right to left revealed ten cases with significant motion at 3 months, and three at 12 months. With motion from flexion to extension, ten cases showed significant motion at 3 months and three at 12 months. In only three cases was the mobility-provocation RSA considered to add any information on the stability of the fusions compared to that obtained with the deformation studies. In 37 patients mobility-provocation radiography in flexion-extension using conventional technique was done to evaluate the accuracy. The mean difference between angular motions recorded on plain radiographs and rotations around the transverse axis in flexion to extension recorded with RSA was 1.6° (range 0.04°–8.04°, SD 2.1°). The corresponding 95% and 99% confidence limits for the difference between the two methods were 5.8° and 7.2°. The study showed that the use of mobility-provocation RSA did not add any information over that obtained by deformation RSA studies. Conventional radiography is too inaccurate to measure inducible displacement in this patient population.     

Biomechanical evaluation of subcortical versus bicortical screw purchase in anterior cervical plating

Summary The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the stabilities provided by anterior cervical H-plating with screws purchased either subcortically or bicortically on porcine cervical spines.Nine porcine cervical spines (C3–C4) were challenged by 12 Nm in extension followed by 6 Nm in flexion in 6 consecutive steps, i.e., (1) when disc was intact, (2) after discectomy. Subsequently, a tricortical bone graft was inserted to simulate interbody fusion. Each specimen was tested again (3) when plated with 16 mm screws to purchase subcortically and (4) after cyclic loading (f=0.5 Hz, n=1000), (5) when plated with 30 mm screws to purchase bicortically and (6) after cyclic loading. Neutral zone and range of motion were parameters normalized for comparison.The results showed comparable stability in constructs plated with screws purchased either subcortically or bicortically before cyclic loading. Cyclic loading deteriorated construct-bone relation in both groups, yet bicortically purchased screws rendered additional stability in anterior cervical plating.     

Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There have been many follow-up studies on anterior interbody fusion for cervical nerve root and spinal cord compression, and excellent neurological outcomes have been reported. However, postoperative degenerative changes at adjacent discs may lead to the development of new radiculopathy or myelopathy. In the previous reports, the incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease has ranged from 7% to 15%. PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to investigate the incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion (ACIF) and to identify the factors that are related to the development of this disease. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 112 patients were followed up clinically and radiologically for more than 2 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Follow-up evaluation was primarily by means of clinical visits. The postoperative course of any symptoms, the findings of neurological examination and serial follow-up radiographs were performed in all patients. METHODS: The diagnosis of symptomatic adjacent segment disease was based on the presence of new radiculopathy or myelopathy symptoms referable to an adjacent level, and the presence of a compressive lesion at an adjacent level by magnetic resonance imaging or myelography. We evaluated the correlation between the incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease and the following clinical parameters (age at operation, sex, number of the levels fused) and radiological parameters (preoperative cervical spine alignment, preoperative range of motion of C2-C7 cervical spine, anteroposterior spinal canal diameter, preoperative existence of an adjacent segment degeneration on plain radiograph, myelography and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). RESULTS: Symptomatic adjacent segment disease developed in 19 of 112 patients (19%) followed. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed in order to follow the disease-free survival of the entire series of patients. The disease-free survival rates were 89% at 5 years, 84% at 10 years and 67% at 17 years. The incidences of indentation of dura matter on preoperative myelography or disc protrusion on MRI at the adjacent level were significantly higher in disease cases (p=.0087, .0299, respectively; chi-squared test). However, the other parameters did not show a statistically significant difference. There were seven cases (37%) who had failure of nonoperative treatment and additional operations were performed. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease after ACIF was higher when preoperative myelography or MRI revealed asymptomatic disc degeneration at that level regardless of the number of the levels fused, preoperative alignment, spinal canal diameter or fusion alignment.     

Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis

The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of three different anterior approaches for three-level cervical spondylosis. The records of 120 patients who underwent anterior approaches because of three-level cervical spondylosis between 2006 and 2008 were reviewed. Based on the type of surgery, the patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 was three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Group 2 anterior cervical hybrid decompression and fusion (ACHDF, combination of ACDF and ACCF); and Group 3 two-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The clinical outcomes including blood loss, operation time, complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, C2–C7 angle, segmental angle, and fusion rate were compared. There were no significant differences in JOA improvement and fusion rate among three groups. However, in terms of segmental angle and C2–C7 angle improvement, Group 2 was superior to Group 3 and inferior to Group 1 (all P < 0.01). Group 2 was less in operation time than Group 3 (P < 0.01) and more than Group 1 (P < 0.01). Group 3 had more blood loss than Group 1 and Group 2 (all P < 0.01) and had higher complication rate than Group 1 (P < 0.05). No significant differences in blood loss and complication rate were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 (P > 0.05). ACDF was superior in most outcomes to ACCF and ACHDF. If the compressive pathology could be resolved by discectomy, ACDF should be the treatment of choice. ACHDF was an ideal alternative procedure to ACDF if retro-vertebral pathology existed. ACCF was the last choice considered.     

ACCF联合颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的探讨颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)联合颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2016-05—2017-07采用ACCF联合颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗的30例多节段脊髓型颈椎病,比较术前、术后1周及末次随访时JOA评分、颈椎Cobb角、椎间隙高度。结果30例均顺利完成手术并获得完整随访,随访时间平均21.6个月,切口均一期愈合,植骨均骨性愈合,无内固定松动、移位、断裂、伤口感染、声音嘶哑及神经功能加重等并发症。术后1例出现脑脊液漏,2例出现吞咽不适,非手术治疗后均治愈。术后1周与末次随访时JOA评分、颈椎Cobb角、椎间隙高度较术前均明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。末次随访时根据JOA评分改善率评定综合疗效:优12例,良14例,可4例。结论ACCF联合颈前路减压zerop椎间植骨融合内固定术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病安全可靠,能够有效地恢复椎间隙高度和颈椎生理曲度。     

Presentation and treatment of anterior cervical hyperostosis

We report a case of severe anterior cervical hyperostosis presenting with dysphagia.     

Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy fusion and cervical corpectomy fusion using titanium cages for reconstruction: analysis of outcome and long-term follow-up

Retrospective comparative study of 80 consecutive patients treated with either anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF) or anterior cervical corpectomy fusion (ACCF) for multi-level cervical spondylosis. To compare clinical outcome, fusion rates, and complications of anterior cervical reconstruction of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF performed using titanium mesh cages (TMCs) filled with autograft and anterior cervical plates (ACPs). Reconstruction of the cervical spine after discectomy or corpectomy with titanium cages filled with autograft has become an acceptable alternative to both allograft and autograft; however, there is no data comparing the outcome of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF using this reconstruction. We evaluated 80 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis at our institution from 1998 to 2001. In this series, 42 patients underwent multi-level ACDF (Group 1) and 38 patients underwent ACCF (Group 2). Interbody TMCs and local autograft bone with ACPs were used in both procedures. Medical records were reviewed to assess outcome. Clinical outcome was measured by Odom’s criteria. Operative time and blood loss were noted. Radiographs were obtained at 6 and 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (if necessary). Early hardware failures and pseudarthroses were noted. Cervical sagittal curvature was measured by Ishihara’s index at 1 year. Group 1 had a mean age 46.2 years (range 35–60 years). Group 2 had a mean age 50.1 years (range 35–70 years).The operative time was significantly lower (P < 0.001) and blood loss significantly higher (P < 0.001) in Group 2 than in Group 1. At a minimum of 1 year follow up, patients in both groups had equivalent improvement in their clinical symptoms. The fusion rates for Group 1 were 97.6 and 92.1% for Group 2. The rates of early hardware failure were higher in Group 2 (2.6%) than in Group 1 (0%). The fusion rates for Group 1 were not significantly higher than Group 2 (P > 0.28). There was one patient in Group 1 and 2 patients in Group 2 with pseudarthroses. Complication rates in Group 2 were not significantly higher (P > 0.341). Cervical lordosis was well-maintained (80%) in both groups. Both multi-level ACDF and ACCF with anterior cervical reconstruction using TMC filled with autograft and ACP for treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis have high fusion rates and good clinical outcome. However, there is a higher rate of early hardware failure and pseudarthroses after ACCF than ACDF. Hence, in the absence of specific pathology requiring removal of vertebral body, multi-level ACDF using interbody cages and autologous bone graft could result in lower morbidity.     

Dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a systematic review of potential preventative measures

Background contextAnterior cervical spine surgery is one of the most common spinal procedures performed around the world, but dysphagia is a frequent postoperative complication. Many factors have been associated with an increased risk of swallowing difficulties, including multilevel surgery, revision surgery, and female gender.PurposeThe objective of this study was to review and define potential preventative measures that can decrease the incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery.Study designThis was a systematic literature review.MethodsA systematic review in the Medline database was performed. Articles related to dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery and potential preventative measures were included.ResultsTwenty articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. These articles reported several potential preventative measures to avoid postoperative dysphagia. Preoperative measures include performing tracheal exercises before the surgical procedure. Intraoperative measures can be summarized as avoiding a prolonged operative time and the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein in routine anterior cervical spine surgery, using small and smoother cervical plates, using anchored spacers instead of plates, application of steroid before wound closure, performing arthroplasty instead of anterior cervical fusion for one-level disease, decreasing tracheal cuff pressure during medial retraction, using specific retractors, and changing the dissection plan.ConclusionsCurrent literature supports several preventative measures that may decrease the incidence of postoperative dysphagia. Although the evidence is limited and weak, most of these measures did not appear to increase other complications and can be easily incorporated into a surgical practice, especially in patients who are at high risk for postoperative dysphagia.