Anterior Cervical X-Shape-Corpectomy and Fusion Versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

There has been limited assessment between anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. We sought to compare PROMs from two-level ACDF with single-level ACCF procedures. We evaluate these results in the context of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, which have not been performed previously. This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database Spine Collaborative Research Study Group compared two-level ACDF and single-level ACCF at 3-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMs included arm pain Numeric Rating Scale, neck pain Numeric Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, and North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine differences in perioperative outcomes, as well as the impact of two-level ACDF vs one-level ACCF on PROMs. MCID thresholds were based off previously established limits. Three hundred and thirty patients were included (236 ACDF, 94 ACCF), and the follow-up rate was 82% at 2 years. There was a significantly higher baseline age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, proportion of diabetes, osteoarthritis, ambulation dependence, and myelopathy severity in the ACCF cohort. On multivariable analysis, the ACCF group had greater average length of stay and estimated blood loss. There were no significant differences between reoperation rates or nonroutine discharge. There were similar rates of MCID achievement for PROMs at all time points. This study suggests that both ACDF and ACCF procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy are able to achieve similar, clinically meaningful improvements in PROMs by 2 years. Patients undergoing single-level ACCF have more estimated blood loss and longer length of stay, as well as worse baseline myelopathy. Both procedures have efficacious, durable outcomes. It is reasonable that other factors, such as radiographic characteristics and patient symptoms, may influence patient selection for ACDF vs ACCF.

Objective To compare the clinical results of two different anterior cervical surgical treatment for multi-segmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy (≥3 segments).Methods Twenty-three patients with segmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy,10 cases were treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) as ACDF group,13 cases were treated with anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) as ACCF group.The operation time,operative blood loss,JOA scores,neurological improvement rate and the variable of the D value were compared.Results The operation time and operative blood loss in ACDF group was significantly lower than that in ACCF group [(130.0 ±31.5) min vs.(150.0 ±42.5) min,(150.0 ± 120.8) ml vs.(310.0 ± 320.8) ml,P ＜ 0.05].The variable of the D value in ACDF group was significantly higher than that in ACCF group [(3.1 ± 1.4) mm vs.(2.3 ± 0.9) mm,P ＜ 0.05].There was no statistically significant difference in JOA scores,neurological improvement rate between ACDF group and ACCF group.Two cases of cerebrospinal fluid leakage in ACDF group,the oppression and drainage recovery after treatment.One case of 14 d after fistula complications in ACCF group,after patching were cured; 2 cases of titanium mesh shift,follow the fusion.Conclusions Both methods attain good clinical results.ACDF combined with ACCF treatment of multi-segmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy,with shorter operation time,relatively less blood loss,and better restoration of cervical sagittal alignment. Key words: Spine fusion; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

BackgroundThis meta-analysis explored the efficacy and safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) comparing to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) patients.MethodsSeveral electronic databases were searched combined with manually searching. Thirteen randomized controlled studies were enrolled with 1,062 CSM patients, including 468 patients and 594 patients in the in the ACCF and ACDF group, respectively. The meta-analysis was then performed using the STATA 12.0 software. Crude standard mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.ResultsOur meta-analysis results revealed that CSM patients in ACDF group showed less blood loss than those in ACCF group (SMD = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.03 ~ 1.39, P < 0.001). The operation time of CSM patients in the ACDF group was also obviously shorter than those in ACCF group (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.23 ~ 0.57, P < 0.001). Furthermore, CSM patients in ACDF group had shorter hospital time than those in ACCF group (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.21 ~ 0.69, P < 0.001).ConclusionOur findings provide empirical evidence that ACDF may be more effective than ACCF for CSM treatment.

The purpose of this research is to compare the clinical efficacy, postoperative complication and surgical trauma between anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus posterior laminoplasty for the treatment of oppressive myelopathy owing to cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). Systematic review and meta-analysis. An comprehensive search of literature was implemented in three electronic databases (Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane library). Randomized or non-randomized controlled studies published since January 1990 to July 2017 that compared anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) versus posterior laminoplasty (LAMP) for the treatment of cervical oppressive myelopathy owing to OPLL were acquired. Exclusion criteria were non-human studies, non-controlled studies, combined anterior and posterior operative approach, the other anterior or posterior approaches involving cervical discectomy and fusion and laminectomy with (or without) instrumented fusion, revision surgeries, and cervical myelopathy caused by cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The quality of the included articles was evaluated according to GRADE. The main outcome measures included: preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; neuro-functional recovery rate; complication rate; reoperation rate; preoperative and postoperative C2-C7 Cobb angle; operation time and intraoperative blood loss; and subgroup analysis was performed according to the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio (Subgroup A:the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio <60%, and Subgroup B:the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥60%). A total of 10 studies containing 735 patients were included in this meta-analysis. And all of the selected studies were non-randomized controlled trials with relatively low quality as assessed by GRADE. The results revealed that there was no obvious statistical difference in preoperative JOA score between the ACCF and LAMP groups in both subgroups. Also, in subgroup A (the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio <60%), no obvious statistical difference was observed in the postoperative JOA score and neurofunctional recovery rate between the ACCF and LAMP groups. But, in subgroup B (the mean preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥60%), the ACCF group illustrated obviously higher postoperative JOA score and neurofunctional recovery rate than the LAMP group (P<0.01, WMD 1.89 [1.50, 2.28] and P<0.01, WMD 24.40 [20.10, 28.70], respectively). Moreover, the incidence of both complication and reoperation was markedly higher in the ACCF group compared with LAMP group (P<0.05, OR 1.76 [1.05, 2.97] and P<0.05, OR 4.63 [1.86, 11.52], respectively). In addition, the preoperative cervical C2-C7 Cobb angle was obviously larger in the LAMP group compared with ACCF group (P<0.05, WMD -5.77 [-9.70, -1.84]). But no statistically obvious difference was detected in the postoperative cervical C2-C7 Cobb angle between the two groups. Furthermore, the ACCF group showed significantly more operation time as well as blood loss compared with LAMP group (P<0.01, WMD 111.43 [40.32,182.54], and P<0.01, WMD 111.32 [61.22, 161.42], respectively). In summary, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio<60%, no palpable difference was tested in postoperative JOA score and neurofunctional recovery rate. But, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥60% ACCF was associated with better postoperative JOA score and the recovery rate of neurological function compared with LAMP. Synchronously, ACCF in the cure for cervical myelopathy owing to OPLL led to more surgical trauma and more incidence of complication and reoperation. On the other hand, LAMP had gone a diminished postoperative C2-C7 Cobb angle, that might be a cause of relatively higher incidence of postoperative late neurofunctional deterioration. In brief, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio <60%, LAMP seems to be effective and safe. However, when the preoperative canal occupying ratio ≥60%, we prefer to choose ACCF while complications could be controlled by careful manipulation and advanced surgical techniques. No matter which option you choose, benefits and risks ought to be balanced.

To compare the postoperative sagittal balance and occurrence of axial symptoms between anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of two-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). A total of 71 consecutive patients who underwent ACCF or ACDF for two-level CSM in our institution from January 2014 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 30 (17 males, 13 females) were subjected to ACCF, and 41 (20 males, 21 females) were treated with ACDF. Perioperative data, radiographic parameters, clinical outcomes, and axial symptom occurrence were compared between the two groups. The average follow-up durations were 13.7 ± 3.9months in the ACCF group and 13.4 ± 3.3months in the ACDF group. The volume of blood loss was significantly lower in the ACDF group than in the ACCF group, and the operation time of the former was significantly shorter than that of the latter. The postoperative global lordotic angle and T1 slope were significantly larger in the ACCF group than in the ACDF group in each follow-up. The occurrence of postoperative axial symptoms was significantly lower in the ACDF group than in the ACCF group. The volume of blood loss was lower and the operation time was shorter in ACDF than in ACCF for the treatment of two-level CSM. Sagittal balance was better in the ACDF group than in the ACCF group, and this observation may lead to a reduced occurrence of axial symptoms.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common cause of progressive neurological decline in elderly patients, often necessitating surgical decompression. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) are commonly used procedures. However, there is no consensus on the superior approach, particularly in cases involving 2-level CSM. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched for studies comparing perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes of ACDF and ACCF in 2-level CSM. Fourteen studies with 4,449 patients (ACDF: 2,265, ACCF: 2,184) met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes analyzed included operating (OR) time, blood loss, hospital stay, patient-reported outcomes (Neck Disability Index [NDI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS], modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA], Odom criteria), radiological parameters, complications, and fusion rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. ACDF was associated with significantly shorter OR time, reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower overall complication rates compared with ACCF. Both procedures showed comparable improvements in NDI, VAS, and mJOA scores. ACDF demonstrated superior postoperative cervical alignment, with greater improvements in global and segmental lordosis. Complication rates, including implant-related issues, were higher in the ACCF group, while reoperation and fusion rates were similar. Both ACDF and ACCF significantly improve functional outcomes in 2-level CSM. However, ACDF demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes, complications, and cervical alignment. While ACDF is associated with shorter OR time and fewer complications, ACCF may be necessary in cases with extensive disk herniation or other pathologies requiring direct decompression posterior to the vertebral body. Surgical decisions should be individualized based on patient-specific pathology. Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

In the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are effective decompressive techniques. It remains to be determined whether ACCF and ACDF offer equivalent outcomes for multilevel CSM. In this study, the authors compared perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes between 2-level ACCF and 3-level ACDF. Between 2006 and 2012, all patients at the authors' hospital who underwent 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF performed by 1 of 2 surgeons were identified. Primary outcomes of interest were sagittal Cobb angle, adjacent-segment disease (ASD) requiring surgery, neck pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS), and Nurick score. Secondary outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, perioperative complications, and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate. Chi-square tests and 2-tailed Student t-tests were used to compare the 2 groups. A subgroup analysis of patients without posterior spinal fusion (PSF) was also performed. Twenty patients underwent 2-level ACCF, and 35 patients underwent 3-level ACDF during a 6-year period. Preoperative Nurick scores were higher in the ACCF group (2.1 vs 1.1, p = 0.014), and more patients underwent PSF in the 2-level ACCF group compared with patients in the 3-level ACDF group (60.0% vs 17.1%, p = 0.001). Otherwise there were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, and baseline clinical parameters between the 2 groups. Two-level ACCF was associated with significantly higher EBL compared with 3-level ACDF for the anterior stage of surgery (382.2 ml vs 117.9 ml, p < 0.001). Two-level ACCF was also associated with a longer hospital stay compared with 3-level ACDF (7.2 days vs 4.9 days, p = 0.048), but a subgroup comparison of patients without PSF showed no significant difference in length of stay (3.1 days vs 4.4 days for 2-level ACCF vs 3-level ACDF, respectively; p = 0.267). Similarly, there was a trend toward more complications in the 2-level ACCF group (20.0%) than the 3-level ACDF group (5.7%; p = 0.102), but a subgroup analysis that excluded those who had second-stage PSF no longer showed the same trend (2-level ACCF, 0.0% vs 3-level ACDF, 3.4%; p = 0.594). There were no significant differences between the ACCF group and the ACDF group in terms of postoperative sagittal Cobb angle (7.2° vs 12.1°, p = 0.173), operative ASD (6.3% vs 3.6%, p = 0.682), and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate (6.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.909). Both groups had similar improvement in mean VAS neck pain scores (3.4 vs 3.2 for ACCF vs ACDF, respectively; p = 0.860) and Nurick scores (0.8 vs 0.7, p = 0.925). Two-level ACCF was associated with greater EBL and longer hospital stays when patients underwent a second-stage PSF. However, the length of stay was similar when patients underwent anterior-only decompression with either 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF. Furthermore, perioperative complication rates were similar in the 2 groups when patients underwent anterior decompression without PSF. Both groups obtained similar postoperative cervical lordosis, operative ASD rates, radiographic pseudarthrosis rates, neurological improvement, and pain relief.

Cervical alignment and clinical outcome of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion vs. anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion in local kyphotic cervical spondylotic myelopathy

BackgroundThe decision to treat multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the biomechanical characteristics of the intervertebral discs at the adjacent segments and internal fixation, and to provide scientific experimental evidence for surgical treatment of MCSM.MethodsAn intact C2-C7 cervical spine model was developed and validated. Four additional models were developed from the fusion model, including multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), hybrid decompression and fusion (HDF), and mACDF with cage alone (mACDF-CA). Biomechanical characteristics on the plate and the disc of adjacent levels (C2/3, C6/7) were comparatively analyzed.ResultsOf the four models, stress on the upper (C2/3) adjacent intervertebral disc was the lowest in the mACDF-CA group and highest in the ACCF group. Stress on the intervertebral discs at adjacent segments was higher for the upper C2/3 than the lower C6/7 intervertebral disc. In all models, the mACDF-CA group had the lowest stress on the intervertebral disc, while the ACCF group had the highest stress. In the three surgical models with titanium plate fixation (mACDF, ACCF, and HDF), the ACCF group had the highest stress at the titanium plate-screw interface, while the mACDF group had the lowest stress.ConclusionAmong the four anterior cervical reconstructive techniques for MCSM, mACDF-CA makes little effect on the adjacent disc stress, which might reduce the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) after fusion. However, the accompanying risk of the increased incidence of cage subsidence should never be neglected.

In this study, we systematically analyze the differences in complications between anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) in two- and three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, and Wan Fang Data for all relevant studies. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3. A total of 11 articles with 849 study subjects were included, with 474 patients in the ACDF group and 375 patients in the ACCF group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that in C5 palsy (odds ratio [OR]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-1.06), pseudarthrosis (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.23-5.07), dysphagia (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.60-1.86), infection (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.16-1.09), cerebrospinal fluid leakage (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.39-3.73), graft dislodgment (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.06-1.37), and hematoma (OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.06-1.83), there are no significant differences between the ACDF and ACCF groups, whereas total complication (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.31-0.80) showed that the ACDF group had a significantly lower morbidity than the ACCF group. Furthermore, the three-level subgroup of ACDF had significantly better results in C5 palsy (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.11-0.88), infection (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.05-0.94), graft dislodgment (OR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01-0.40), and total complication (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.23-0.60) compared with the ACCF subgroup. In general, postoperative pseudarthrosis, dysphagia, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, hematoma, C5 palsy, infection, and graft dislodgment did not differ significantly between the two groups. Total complication was significantly less in the ACDF group compared to the ACCF group. In the three-level subgroup, the morbidity of C5 palsy, infection, and graft dislodgment was significantly lower in ACDF than in ACCF.

Anterior Controllable Antedisplacement Fusion for Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy with Spinal Stenosis: Comparison with Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion

Objective: For cases of cervical disc herniation, highly migrated cervical disc (HMCD) is clinically rare and usually treated with anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). This study aims to analyze the feasibility of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the patients with HMCD.Method: Clinical data of 32 patients with HMCD treated with ACDF or ACCF were retrospectively reviewed. Migration distances of the disc prolapses were measured. The mJOA score was used to evaluate surgical effect.Results: ACDF was successful in 27 patients while ACCF was used for the remaining 5 because of epidural disc prolapse adhesion or unreachable migrated fragments. Complete spinal cord decompression without residual disc fragments was observed in postoperative MRI of all cases. The mean migration distance of the disc prolapses in ACDF group was 7.3 mm, comparing to 11.4 mm in ACCF group. No disc prolapse in ACDF group exceeded the axial length of the vertebral bodies while three of five in ACCF group did. Preoperative mean mJOA scores in ACDF group and ACCF group were 8.20 ± 2.75 and 6.10 ± 2.15, respectively. Postoperative mean mJOA scores in those two groups were significantly improved to 14.70 ± 1.55 (p < .001) and 12.80 ± 1.72 (p < .001), with an improvement rate of 72.80 ± 4.76% and 62.90 ± 9.46%, respectively.Conclusion: ACDF is feasible for patients with HMCD except for cases of epidural disc prolapse adhesion or huge disc prolapse which migrates over the axial length of the vertebral body. Clinical symptoms can be significantly improved with few serious complications in those patients including ones underwent alternative ACCF due to a failed ACDF.

PurposeAnterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion (ACXF) is a novel cervical surgery, designed as partial alternative to the classic technique, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the early-stage outcomes of ACXF in treating two-level cervical spondylosis (CS) through comparisons with ACCF.MethodsA retrospectively comparative study was conducted in two cohorts of patients who underwent single-vertebral ACXF or ACCF to treat two-level CS during September 2019 and October 2021. Clinical and radiological data of all the patients were collected from pre-operation to 1 year after the surgery, following by intra- and intergroup analyses and comparisons.ResultsFifty-seven patients were included, with 24 undergoing ACXF and 33 undergoing ACCF. ACXF group had significantly shorter drainage duration (2.13 ± 0.61 days vs. 3.48 ± 1.30 days, P < 0.001) and less drainage volume (30.21 ± 26.88 ml vs. 69.30 ± 37.65 ml, P < 0.001) than ACCF group. Both techniques significantly improved all the clinical parameters (P < 0.01) with comparable effects (P > 0.05). Each complication rate in ACXF group was lower than that in ACCF group without significant difference (P > 0.05). ACXF showed a significantly smaller transverse decompression range than ACCF (11.93 ± 1.27 mm vs. 16.29 ± 1.88 mm, P < 0.001). Postoperatively, ACXF yielded a comparable fusion rate (P > 0.05) and a significantly lower subsidence rate (P < 0.01) than ACCF technique at all time points.ConclusionsACXF is a potential surgical alternative for certain patients with two-level CS, as it provides both adequate decompression range and fewer adverse events than ACCF. The further modifications on ACXF worth exploration.

Adjacent two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus one-level corpectomy and fusion in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Analysis of perioperative parameters and sagittal balance

A retrospective comparative study was performed in patients with 3-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). To compare the clinical outcomes, radiological parameters, and complication incidence of 3 reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of multilevel CSM. There has been growing interest in combination of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for the treatment of multilevel CSM in recent years. However, the clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes of the hybrid decompression and fusion (HDF) have rarely been investigated. A total of 180 consecutive patients with 3-level CSM undergoing the anterior decompression and fusion procedures from January 2003 to July 2010 were retrospectively investigated. According to various reconstructive techniques, the patients were divided into 3 groups: HDF, ACDF, and ACCF groups. The clinical effects and improvements of cervical and segmental lordosis in each group were assessed. In addition, the fusion rate, postoperative complications, and radiographical adjacent-level changes regarding each group were also evaluated. No statistical differences in clinical effects, restoration of cervical lordosis, and incidences of postoperative complications were found between the HDF and ACDF groups (P > 0.05). The ACCF group has achieved clinical effects similar to the ACDF or HDF group (P > 0.05), but it had more bleeding, lower fusion rate, and higher incidences of postoperative complications compared with the ACDF or HDF group (P < 0.05). The improvements of the cervical and segmental lordosis in the ACCF group were significantly less than the ACDF or HDF group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in radiographical adjacent-level changes among the 3 groups (P > 0.05). The HDF can be considered an effective and safe alternative procedure compared with ACDF in the treatment of the multilevel CSM, and ACCF should be the last option.