1076 3-Level ACDF Versus 3-Level Laminectomy and Fusion: Are There Differences in Outcomes? An Analysis of the QOD CSM Cohort

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies comparing anterior versus posterior approaches for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) are limited by the heterogeneity of levels operated. METHODS: The prospective QOD CSM cohort was queried for fusions across only three interspaces. Surgeries crossing the cervicothoracic junction were excluded. The cohort was divided into anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior laminectomy-and-fusion. 24-month patient-reported outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 199 patients (123 ACDF, 76 posterior fusions), 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF: 90.2% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs. 65.0 ± 10.3 yr, p < 0.01), used more private insurance (56.1% vs. 36.8%, p = 0.02), were more often employed (39.8% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline mJOA, NDI, NRS Arm-Pain, NRS Neck-Pain, and EQ-5D (p > 0.05). ACDF had shorter hospitalizations (1.6 vs. 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and less non-routine discharge (7.3% vs. 22.8%, p < 0.01) but higher postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.049). Both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, ACDF was associated with the greatest 24-month NASS Satisfaction (NASS 1)(69.4% vs. 53.7%, OR = 2.44, p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month patient-reported outcomes. There were no differences in 3-month readmission (4.1% ACDF vs. 3.9% posterior fusion, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation rate (13.5% ACDF vs. 18.6% posterior fusion, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort limited to 3-level surgeries, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, and higher routine discharge rates; however, posterior cervical fusion resulted in less dysphagia. After controlling for confounders, the ACDF cohort had a significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction. Patients should be counseled on the risks and benefits of each approach, given relatively comparable outcomes.