Dataset Information

4- and 5-level anterior fusions of the cervical spine: review of literature and clinical results.

ABSTRACT: In the future, there will be an increased number of cervical revision surgeries, including 4- and more-levels. But, there is a paucity of literature concerning the geometrical and clinical outcome in these challenging reconstructions. To contribute to current knowledge, we want to share our experience with 4- and 5-level anterior cervical fusions in 26 cases in sight of a critical review of literature. At index procedure, almost 50% of our patients had previous cervical surgeries performed. Besides failed prior surgeries, indications included degenerative multilevel instability and spondylotic myelopathy with cervical kyphosis. An average of 4.1 levels was instrumented and fused using constrained (26.9%) and non-constrained (73.1%) screw-plate systems. At all, four patients had 3-level corpectomies, and three had additional posterior stabilization and fusion. Mean age of patients at index procedure was 54 years with a mean follow-up intervall of 30.9 months. Preoperative lordosis C2-7 was 6.5 degrees in average, which measured a mean of 15.6 degrees at last follow-up. Postoperative lordosis at fusion block was 14.4 degrees in average, and 13.6 degrees at last follow-up. In 34.6% of patients some kind of postoperative change in construct geometry was observed, but without any catastrophic construct failure. There were two delayed unions, but finally union rate was 100% without any need for the Halo device. Eleven patients (42.3%) showed an excellent outcome, twelve good (46.2%), one fair (3.8%), and two poor (7.7%). The study demonstrated that anterior-only instrumentations following segmental decompressions or use of the hybrid technique with discontinuous corpectomies can avoid the need for posterior supplemental surgery in 4- and 5-level surgeries. However, also the review of literature shows that decreased construct rigidity following more than 2-level corpectomies can demand 360 degrees instrumentation and fusion. Concerning construct rigidity and radiolographic course, constrained plates did better than non-constrained ones. The discussion of our results are accompanied by a detailed review of literature, shedding light on the biomechanical challenges in multilevel cervical procedures and suggests conclusions.

SUBMITTER: Koller H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2140121 | biostudies-other | 2007 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study Design Review. Objective Postoperative oropharyngeal dysphagia is one of the most common complications following anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS). We review and summarize recent literature in order to provide a general overview of clinical signs and symptoms, assessment, incidence and natural history, pathophysiology, risk factors, treatment, prevention, and topics for future research. Methods A search of English literature regarding dysphagia following anterior cervical spine surgery was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. The search was focused on articles published since the last review on this topic was published in 2005. Results Patients who develop dysphagia after ACSS show significant alterations in swallowing biomechanics. Patient history, physical examination, X-ray, direct or indirect laryngoscopy, and videoradiographic swallow evaluation are considered the primary modalities for evaluating oropharyngeal dysphagia. There is no universally accepted objective instrument for assessing dysphagia after ACSS, but the most widely used instrument is the Bazaz Dysphagia Score. Because dysphagia is a subjective sensation, patient-reported instruments appear to be more clinically relevant and more effective in identifying dysfunction. The causes of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS are multifactorial, involving neuronal, muscular, and mucosal structures. The condition is usually transient, most often beginning in the immediate postoperative period but sometimes beginning more than 1 month after surgery. The incidence of dysphagia within one week after ACSS varies from 1 to 79% in the literature. This wide variance can be attributed to variations in surgical techniques, extent of surgery, and size of the implant used, as well as variations in definitions and measurements of dysphagia, time intervals of postoperative evaluations, and relatively small sample sizes used in published studies. The factors most commonly associated with an increased risk of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS are: more levels operated, female gender, increased operative time, and older age (usually >60 years). Dysphagic patients can learn compensatory strategies for the safe and effective passage of bolus material. Certain intraoperative and postoperative techniques may decrease the incidence and/or severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS. Conclusions Large, prospective, randomized studies are required to confirm the incidence, prevalence, etiology, mechanisms, long-term natural history, and risk factors for the development of dysphagia after ACSS, as well as to identify prevention measures. Also needed is a universal outcome measurement that is specific, reliable and valid, would include global, functional, psychosocial, and physical domains, and would facilitate comparisons among studies. Results of these studies can lead to improvements in surgical techniques and/or perioperative management, and may reduce the incidence of dysphagia after ACSS.

Project description:BackgroundLumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height.Questions/purposesWe reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine.MethodsUsing search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review.ResultsPosterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK-titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation.ConclusionsAll of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.

Dataset Information

4- and 5-level anterior fusions of the cervical spine: review of literature and clinical results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets