前路颈椎桥形锁定融合器(ROI-C)治疗退变性颈椎间盘疾病的临床应用分析

[目的]观察前路颈椎桥形锁定融合器(ROI-C)置入内固定术治疗退变性颈椎间盘疾病的临床疗效。[方法]2011年9月~2013年9月采用颈前路椎间盘摘除、椎管减压、ROI-C椎间融合器植骨融合术治疗退变性颈椎间盘疾病55例(71个节段),其中脊髓型颈椎病31例,神经根型颈椎病24例;单节段45例,双节段10例。评估术前及术后第3、6、12个月患者视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分和日本骨科学会(JOA)评分及放射学检查。记录假体沉降、融合器位置、融合节段Cobb角、融合情况和椎间稳定性以及并发症等。[结果]55例患者中,48例(64个节段)获得最少12个月随访(平均18.1个月)。术前平均椎间隙高度为5.24 mm,术后3 d为7.86 mm,术后12个月为7.64 mm。术后3、6、12个月VAS评分、JOA评分、融合节段Cobb角及椎间隙高度均优于术前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。按VAS评估标准,术后12个月时优32例,良12例,可4例,优良率92%(44/48);按JOA评分标准,术后12个月时优30例,良14例,可4例,优良率92%(44/48)。随访过程中4例发生融合器沉降,1例发生融合器嵌片退出。术后12个月根据颈椎过屈过伸位X线片判断椎间稳定率100%,融合率100%。术后均未发现吞咽困难、伤口血肿、呼吸困难、感染等严重并发症。[结论]颈椎前路ROI-C椎间融合器具有良好的力学稳定性,可有效恢复颈椎生理曲度和椎间隙高度。     

颈前路Interfix与Syncage-C的临床应用比较

目的比较两种颈椎椎间融合器前路减压融合术后椎体颈前柱高度、生理曲度及融合时间。方法采用Interfix及Syncage-C两种颈椎椎间融合器行颈椎病及颈椎间盘突出症前路减压后椎体间融合141例,其中Interfix38例,Syncage-C103例。术后摄X线片,观察手术节段的稳定性、颈前柱高度、生理曲度,以及融合时间。结果随访6~12个月,手术节段稳定,两种椎间融合器骨融合时间无显著性差异;术后颈前柱高度,除单节段外,多节段Interfix与Syncage-C有显著性差异。结论Syncage-C在术后颈前柱高度恢复及恢复生理曲度等方面均优于Interfix。     

颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术与Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术和Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2014-05—2019-05诊治的55例双节段脊髓型颈椎病,26例采用颈前路人工椎间盘置换术治疗(观察组),29例采用Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗(对照组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、邻近节段退变数,比较2组末次随访时疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、伤椎Cobb角、C_(2～7)活动度、C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、手术节段活动度、上位相邻节段活动度、下位相邻节段活动度。结果 2组均顺利完成手术并获得至少24个月的随访。2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组术后出现邻近节段退变数较对照组少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时2组疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、伤椎Cobb角比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),观察组C_(2～7)活动度、C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、手术节段活动度、上位相邻节段活动度、下位相邻节段活动度较对照组大,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术和Zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病均能改善脊髓功能,增加颈椎活动度,颈前路人工颈椎间盘置换术在维持颈椎活动度、减少术后相邻节段退变等方面有一定优势。     

颈椎前路钢板加椎间融合器治疗外伤性颈椎间盘突出症

目的探讨颈椎前路钢板加椎间融合器治疗外伤性颈椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法对21例外伤性颈椎间盘突出症患者行颈椎前路钢板加椎间融合器治疗。结果患者均获随访,时间5～15个月。植骨均达骨性愈合,愈合时间12～22周。无骨不连发生。神经功能改善明显。根据JOA评分评定疗效:优16例,良4例,可1例。结论颈椎前路减压、椎间盘切除、钢板加椎间融合器治疗外伤性颈椎间盘突出症的疗效满意。     

颈前路减压cage与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈前路减压cage与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段颈椎病的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2015-03—2018-03诊治的120例单节段颈椎病,60例采用颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗(zero-p组),60例采用颈前路减压cage椎间植骨融合内固定治疗(cage组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后出现吞咽困难数,比较2组术后3个月及末次随访时上肢疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分、C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、病椎Cobb角、邻近椎体高度,比较2组末次随访时Eck植骨融合等级。结果 2组均顺利完成手术并获得至少2年的随访。zero-p组手术时间较cage组短,术后出现吞咽困难数较cage组少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。2组术中出血量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3个月及末次随访时2组颈部及上肢疼痛VAS评分、JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后3个月2组C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、病椎Cobb角、邻近椎体高度比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);末次随访时zero-p组C_(2～7)颈椎曲度、病椎Cobb角、邻近椎体高度较cage组小,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时2组Eck植骨融合等级比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈前路减压cage与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段颈椎病疗效相当,而颈前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定手术时间较短,术后吞咽困难的发生率较低,但维持椎间高度与颈椎曲度的效果较差。     

颈前路椎间盘摘除椎间融合器植骨内固定术治疗交感型颈椎病

目的观察颈前路椎间盘摘除椎间融合器植骨内固定术治疗交感型颈椎病的临床效果。方法对21例交感型颈椎病患者行颈前路椎间盘摘除椎间融合器植骨内固定术,其中1个间隙融合5例,2个间隙融合12例,3个间隙融合4例;术前及末次随访时根据JOA评分、交感神经症状改善情况及X片对患者进行临床疗效评定。结果手术均顺利完成,手术时间（134．5±24．7）min,术中出血量（92．6±65．7）ml。术后随访12～47个月,平均26个月,交感神经症状改善情况：优6例,良13例,可2例,差0例,优良率90．4％;JOA评分由术前的（10．3±1．4）分提高到末次随访时的（13．9±1．5）分,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。末次随访时植骨均融合,椎间融合器及内固定位置良好。椎间融合器无沉降,颈椎前凸曲度保持良好。结论颈前路椎间盘摘除椎间融合器植骨内固定术治疗交感型颈椎病可获得较好的临床疗效。     

ROI-C双锚定自锁式融合器在颈椎前路手术的应用

目的探讨使用双锚定自锁式融合器(ROI-C)的颈前路手术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床效果。方法 2012-01-2014-03,采用颈前路椎间盘切除减压双锚定自锁式椎间融合器固定治疗脊髓型颈椎病43例(88个椎节),记录术前和末次随访SF-36健康调查评分评估治疗结果 ;在各个随访时间点拍摄颈椎侧位X线片,测量病变椎间隙高度、颈椎整体曲度以判定颈椎的即时稳定性和植骨融合情况,采用重复测量方差分析结果。结果 JOA评分由术前平均(6.2±2.9)分增加至术后平均(12.9±1.6)分,具有统计学意义(F=16.25,P=0.001),优良率为90.6%。SF-36健康所选维度评分较术前均有显著改善(t=1.098~11.897,P0.05)。椎间隙高度由术前平均(5.2±1.7)mm,末次随访时平均(7.9±0.6)mm,差异具有统计学意义(F=10.28,P=0.039);颈椎整体曲度变化由术前平均5°±7°,至末次随访时平均为9°±13°,有统计学意义(F=216.27,P=0.000)。2例患者分别出现声音嘶哑和吞咽困难,术后2周自愈。术后6个月拍摄X线片或行CT检查证实,88个融合节段都获骨性融合。结论颈椎前路减采用双锚定自锁式颈椎间融合器能有效恢复颈椎间隙高度和生理弧度,提供颈椎即刻稳定性,植骨融合率高,临床效果满意。     

双插片自稳式融合器治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效观察

目的评价颈前路减压双插片自稳式融合器(ROI-C)植骨融合治疗颈椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2011-10—2014-09采用颈前路减压ROI-C植骨融合治疗的34例颈椎间盘突出症,统计手术时间、术中出血量、并发症,测量术前术后颈椎曲度、病变节段椎间隙高度,并以植骨融合率、NDI指数、JOA评分、Odom标准评价临床疗效。结果本组随访时间14~31个月,平均21.6个月。单节段手术时间75~100 min,平均88 min。双节段手术时间105~125 min,平均113 min。术中出血量70~310 ml,平均195 ml。术后1例出现声音嘶哑,2例出现轻度吞咽困难,无切口感染。术后6个月,所有患者均获得骨性融合。末次随访时NDI指数(t=14.530,P0.001)、JOA评分(t=7.100,P=0.000 1)、椎间隙高度(t=3.620,P=0.000 4)及颈椎曲度(t=7.690,P0.001)均较术前明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。末次随访时采用Odom标准评定疗效:优24例,良7例,可3例,优良率91.2%。结论颈前路减压ROC-I植骨融合治疗颈椎间盘突出症是一种创伤小和有效的手术方法,具有并发症少、疗效好的优点。     

碳纤维椎间融合器在单节段颈椎间盘突出症中的应用及近期疗效观察

目的探讨保留终板的颈前路椎间盘切除减压、碳纤维椎间融合器(cage)植入治疗单节段颈椎间盘突出症(CDH)的短期疗效。方法对28例单节段CDH患者行颈前路椎间盘切除减压、保留终板、碳纤维cage植骨融合术,术前、术后1周、3个月、6个月、1年进行JOA评分、摄X线片,观察植骨融合率、椎间高度、Cobb角及功能恢复情况。结果24例获得随访,平均随访13.2月。植骨融合率100%,平均融合时间3.4月。椎间高度、Cobb角维持满意。症状改善率75%。本组病例未见脊髓、神经损伤及cage移位、下沉,1例髂骨供骨区短期疼痛。结论碳纤维cage能有效恢复和维持椎间高度和颈椎生理弧度,融合率高,近期疗效满意。     

Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术与ROI-C辅助的颈椎前路减压融合术治疗单节段颈椎病的临床研究

目的比较Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术与ROI-C辅助的颈椎前路减压融合术治疗单节段颈椎病的效果。方法回顾性分析2016年3月至2017年9月在我院治疗的单节段颈椎病患者,对符合标准的35例患者资料进行分组,其中Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术15例,ROI-C辅助的颈椎前路减压融合术20例,术后随访12个月以上。记录手术时间、术中出血量和手术相关并发症。采用日本矫形外科协会(Japanese orthopedic association,JOA)评分、颈部残障功能指数(neck disability index,NDI)及疼痛视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue scale,VAS)评价临床疗效。颈椎侧位X线片测量手术节段局部前凸椎间盘Cobb角和颈椎整体前凸C_(2～7)Cobb角,过伸过屈位X线片测量颈椎整体活动度(range of motion,ROM),对术前及随访时的数据进行比较。结果 35例患者均完成随访。两组患者末次随访的JOA评分、NDI评分及VAS评分均较术前有明显改善,两组术前的JOA评分、NDI评分及VAS评分组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),两组末次随访的JOA评分、NDI评分及VAS评分组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术组末次随访椎间盘Cobb角、C_(2～7)Cobb角、颈椎整体活动度与术前相比差异无统计学意义(P0.05);ROI-C辅助的颈椎前路减压融合术末次随访椎间盘Cobb角及C_(2～7)Cobb角与术前相比差异无统计学意义(P0.05),末次随访颈椎整体活动度与术前相比差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组术前椎间盘Cobb角、C_(2～7)Cobb角、颈椎整体活动度的组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);两组末次随访时椎间盘Cobb角、C_(2～7)Cobb角、颈椎整体活动度的组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论相比于ROI-C辅助的颈椎前路减压融合术,Mobi-C人工颈椎间盘置换术可以取得与前路减压融合内固定术相同的临床效果,而且更好地保持了颈椎活动度,可以作为颈椎病的有效治疗方法。     

前路椎间盘切除减压融合与椎体次全切除减压融合治疗多节段颈椎病疗效比较

目的比较前路椎间盘减压融合(ACDF)与前路椎体次全切除减压融合(ACCF)治疗多节段颈椎病的效果。方法将138例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者按照治疗方式的不同分为观察组(行ACDF治疗)和对照组(行ACCF治疗),比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术前与术后6个月颈椎总活动度、颈椎曲度、颈椎节段性高度及JOA评分。结果手术时间:观察组(128.3±32.4)min,对照组(163.2±43.6)min;术中出血量:观察组(161.4±122.5)ml,对照组(319.2±308.7)ml;以上指标观察组均少于对照组(P0.05)。术后住院时间:观察组(8.1±3.6)d,对照组(9.5±4.2)d;术后6个月时JOA评分:观察组(12.1±2.2)分,对照组(11.7±2.1)分;颈椎总活动度:观察组26.6°±7.3°,对照组30.5°±8.1°;以上指标两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后颈椎曲度:观察组23.5°±7.4°,对照组16.1°±7.2°;椎间节段性高度:观察组5.6°±0.4°,对照组4.7°±0.8°;以上指标两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF较ACCF手术时间短、术中出血量少、颈椎生理弯曲和椎间节段高度恢复更好。     

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.     

Anterior Interbody Fusion with the BAK-Cage in Cervical Spondylosis

Summary BAK-C is a new autostabilizing interbody cage which is implanted during an anterior cervical procedure to provide stability to the motion segment and allow fusion to occur. Special intrumentation is provided with a bone collecting reamer. The system utilizes surgical site bone graft as the osteo-inductive material within the implant. Biomechanical testing indicates improved stability and animal studies show good fusion. The basic principle is distraction-compression using the tension forces of the annulus fibrosus. Operative material concerns a two years experience with 80 patients (101 levels), 72 with cervical radiculopathy, 8 with myelopathy. Clinical evaluation is assessed on a ten point analogue pain scale for neck and arm/shoulder pain, with neurological examination. Radiological evaluation includes dynamic X-rays, myelo-CT and MRI. Patients are re-evaluated at 1, 6, 12 months postoperatively. Results for neck and radicular pain is excellent, but neurological recovery for radiculopathy and myelopathy is quite different. Radiological results are also good with (except one case) no instability, no cage migration, no kyphosis, no pseudarthrosis. Bone fusion is assessed at 6 and 12 months. Complications are few with proper technique, mainly correct distraction, symmetrical endplate drilling and lateral X-ray control. Only one patient needed an early re-operation with additional miniplate fixation. Immediate stability with good clinical response and no graft morbidity are the advantages of this implant compared to conventional cervical interbody grafting techniques.     

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.     

三种颈前路椎间融合方法的早期临床评价

目的 评价金属笼状椎间融合器(BAK)、聚醚醚酮椎间融合器(PEEK)、自体髂骨3种颈前路融合材料的临床价值。方法 对63例单节段脊髓型颈椎病患者行前路减压术，融合材料分别选用BAK、PEEK、自体髂骨，进行临床疗效及影像学评价。结果 临床症状改善率3组差异无显著性；在骨性融合时间、椎间隙高度、颈椎弧度丧失、相邻节段后凸畸形等方面，PEEK组最优、BAK组次之、自体髂骨组较差，且自体髂骨组有供骨区并发症。结论 在3种材料中，PEEK具有良好的生物力学优势和生物相容性，能维持椎间隙高度和恢复颈椎曲度，且价廉物美；     

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。     

颈椎前路融合术后相邻节段退变的临床观察与分析

[目的]研究颈椎前路融合术是否必然导致邻近节段退变(adjacent segment degeneration,ASD).[方法]1986～1999年,共346例采用“环锯法前路扩大脊髓减压+椎体间植骨内固定术”治疗颈椎退变性疾病,其中,1个间隙55例,2个间隙223例,3个间隙68例.分别评定融合节段头、尾侧相邻间隙及间隔间隙的影像学表现,对结果分组进行统计学检验.[结果]术后随访13.5 (4.1 ～18)年,发生邻近节段明显退变的156例(45.1％),间隔节段明显退变的23例(6.6％).间隔节段退变明显少于邻近节段退变,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).单纯头侧邻近节段发生ASD 84例,单纯尾侧邻近节段发生ASD 27例,头、尾侧邻近节段均发生的45例.头侧邻近节段ASD发生率明显高于尾侧邻近节段,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).按照融合间隙数不同分为单间隙组、2间隙组和3间隙组,单间隙术后ASD 25例(45.5％),其中8例(14.5％)需2次手术.2间隙术后ASD 101例(45.3％),其中37例(16.6％)需2次手术.3间隙术后ASD 30例(44.1％),其中12例(17.6％)需2次手术.各组间ASD发生率比较无显著性差异(P＞0.05).[结论]颈椎前路融合术加速了ASD的发生,并且多见于头侧相邻节段.单节段或多节段融合术后ASD的发生率无显著性差异.     

Should long-segment cervical fusions be routinely carried into the thoracic spine? A multicenter analysis

Background Context

Although recommendations for caudal “end level” in posterior cervical reconstruction remain highly variable, the benefits of routine extension of posterior cervical fusions into the thoracic spine remain unclear.

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.     

Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study

Purpose

We evaluated radiologic and clinical outcomes to compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods

A total of 40 patients who underwent ACDF or ACCF for multilevel CSM were divided into two groups. Group A (n = 25) underwent ACDF and group B (n = 15) ACCF. Clinical outcomes (JOA and VAS scores), perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay, blood loss, operation time), radiological parameters (fusion rate, segmental height, cervical lordosis), and complications were compared.

Results

Both group A and group B demonstrated significant increases in JOA scores and significant decreases in VAS. Patients who underwent ACDF experienced significantly shorter hospital stays (p = 0.031), less blood loss (p = 0.001), and shorter operation times (p = 0.024). Both groups showed significant increases in postoperative cervical lordosis and achieved satisfactory fusion rates (88.0 and 93.3 %, respectively). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications among the groups.

Conclusions

Both ACDF and ACCF provide satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rates for multilevel CSM. However, multilevel ACDF is associated with better radiologic parameters, shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and shorter operative times.