AVALIAçãO FUNCIONAL PóS OPERATóRIA DA ACDF VERSUS PCDF EM MCD: UMA REVISãO SISTEMáTICA E META-ANáLISE

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of anterior versus posterior surgical approaches for multisegment cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM). Eligible studies published between the period of January 2001 and April 2022 and comparing the anterior and posterior surgical approaches for treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy were retrieved from the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. A total of 17 articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This meta-analysis failed to show any significant difference in the duration of surgery, the hospitalization time, or the improvement in the Japanese Orthopedic Association score between the anterior and posterior approaches. The anterior approach, however, exhibited increased efficacy in the improvement of the neck disability index, reduction in the visual analog scale for cervical pain, and improvement in the cervical curvature compared with the posterior approach. Bleeding was also less with the anterior surgical approach. The posterior approach provided a significantly higher range of motion of the cervical spine and showed fewer postoperative complications compared with the anterior approach. While both the surgical approaches have good clinical outcomes and show postoperative neurological function improvement, the meta-analysis shows that both anterior and posterior approaches have certain merits and shortcomings. A meta-analysis of a larger number of randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up can conclusively determine which of the surgical approaches is more beneficial in the treatment of MCSM.

Anterior vs. posterior approaches in the management of multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcome of different surgical methods in treating multi-segmental cervical degeneration. Three hundred and sixty eight patients with multi-segmental cervical degeneration were retrospectively selected and divided into two groups with 184 cases in each based on different surgical methods: one group accepted surgeries from anterior surgical approach and the other group accepted surgeries from posterior surgical approach. Perioperative parameters including operative time, intraoperative blood loss and length of stay were compared between two groups. Patients were followed up after 1 week, 6 month, 10 months and 1 year after surgery. Cervical X-ray was retaken, and Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI ) scores and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS ) scores were obtained for comparison. Samples from cervical disc were processed to detect cytokines level including IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α and MMP-3. Perioperative parameters including operative time, intraoperative blood loss and length of stay showed no significant difference (P < 0.05) between the two groups. JOA score, NDI scores and NPRS scores, all showed a significant improvement after the surgery in both methods, however, when comparing the two methods, no significant difference was found between two groups (P > 0.05), except that NDI scores in anterior surgical approach group were significantly lower than posterior surgical approach group at different follow-up time points (P < 0.05). The average height of fused vertebral bodies after surgery in two groups was significantly different from pre-operative height (P < 0.05), and angle loss in posterior surgical approach group was significantly higher than anterior surgical approach (P < 0.05), which was statistically different. Cytokines including IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α and MMP-3 in two groups had no statistical difference (P > 0.05). Anterior approach surgery and posterior approach surgery are both effective methods to treat multi-segmental cervical degeneration. Anterior approach had better clinical outcomes within 1-year follow-up.

BackgroundSurgical treatment is mainly used for atlantoaxial tuberculosis with neurological damage. However, the anatomic structure around the atlantoaxial joint is complex, and the position of vertebral body is deep, which increases the difficulty of the operation and it is challenging for the surgeon to develop surgical strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of one-stage combined anterior and posterior surgical treatment approach for atlantoaxial tuberculosis with neurological impairment.MethodsFrom January 2005 to January 2015, 12 patients suffering from atlantoaxial tuberculosis with neurological impairment were surgically treated by one-stage combined anterior and posterior approach. Preoperative CT scanning and MRI imaging showed unilateral or bilateral lateral mass destruction of the atlas, and varying destruction degrees of odontoid process, loss of atlantoaxial stability, and tuberculosis focus into the spinal canal resulting in the corresponding spinal cord compression in all patients. The preoperative neurological classifications were Class C for 4 cases, D for 8 cases according to the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) system. Quadruple sensitive anti-TB drug treatment was used in all 12 patients preoperative and postoperative. Patients’ clinical symptoms and neurological function recovery were evaluated by comparing the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and ASIA grading before operation and at the final follow-up.ResultsMean surgical duration was 263.3 ± 43.6 min. Intraoperative blood loss was averagely 529.2 ± 169.8 ml. The average fusion period was 7.3 ± 1.5 months. No instrumentation loosening, migration or breakage was observed during the follow-up of 6.5 ± 2.9 years. The VAS, NDI and JOA scores were significantly changed to 1.00 ± 0.95, 9.50 ± 3.34 and 15.42 ± 1.44 at last follow-up (P < 0.05). The neurological function of all 12 patients was recovered to Class E according to the ASIA grading system.ConclusionIn the treatment of atlantoaxial tuberculosis with neurological impairment, one-stage combined anterior and posterior surgical approach have the ability to complete debridement and decompression, and reconstruction of the stability of the upper cervical spine.

Introduction Outcomes for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) have been measured by numerous health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scales such as the disease-specific modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) and the regional-specific neck disability index (NDI). However, there is no literature analyzing the correlation of myelopathy improvement to regional neck disability changes after surgery. Materials and Methods Post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter database of patients with CSM. A total of 217 patients (78%) met the following inclusion criteria: symptomatic CSM, age over 18 years, and 6 months follow-up with mJOA and NDI. The patient population had a mean age of 57 years and 42% were females ( n = 92). NDI and mJOA were analyzed at baseline and 6 months post-op for the entire group. Correlations were also analyzed by the following subgroups: anterior approach group (AAG, n = 141) and posterior approach group (PAG, n = 76). Results From baseline to 6 months, there was a statistically significant improvement in both mJOA (BL 12.87–6 M 15.25, p &lt; 0.0001) and NDI (BL 42.25–6M 31.61, p &lt; 0.0001) in the overall group. There was a significant small negative correlation between NDI and mJOA at baseline ( R = − 0.34, p &lt; 0.0001) and at 6-month follow-up ( R = − 0.44, p &lt; 0.0001). Within the AAG, there was also a significant negative correlation between NDI and mJOA at baseline ( R = − 0.31, p &lt; 0.0001) and 6 months ( R = − 0.53, p &lt; 0.0001). Within the PAG, there was also a significant negative correlation between NDI and mJOA at baseline ( R = − 0.43, p &lt; 0.0001) and 6 months ( R = − 0.34, p = 0.003). Conclusion Overall, NDI has a significant negative correlation with mJOA at baseline and postoperatively in patients with CSM. This correlation increases postoperatively in the overall group. The PAG showed a decrease in the correlation coefficient after surgery, whereas the AAG showed an increase. This could be because the posterior approach tended to be a more extensive surgery for multilevel disease in older patients, compared with the anterior approach, resulting in more soft tissue disruption and a delay in neck active motion. Regardless of the approach, mJOA still remains significantly correlated with NDI.

Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty

ABSTRACTBackground:The parameter of T1 slope (T1S) minus C2-7 cervical lordosis (CL) is relevant to the surgical management of cervical degenerative diseases (CDD), but whether it contributes to cervical approaches decision-making has not been reported in the literature prior.Purpose:The purpose of this study was to investigate surgical approach optimization based on T1S minus C2-7 CL in the perioperative management of CDD.Materials and Methods:Three hundred sixty-six patients diagnosed with CDD were enrolled from 2018 to 2023. Grouped based on T1S-CL, a value of T1S-CL <20° defined as a matching group, and a value of T1S-CL >20° comprised a matching group. All patients underwent only cervical anterior or posterior approach surgery. Clinical indexes of the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI), and radiologic parameters of T1S, CL, and sagittal vertical axis (C2-7 SVA) were recorded and analyzed.Results:Before surgery, there were significant differences in factors between the two groups for CL, T1S, and T1S-CL (P < 0.05). Postoperatively, clinical indexes and radiological parameters changed significantly (P < 0.001) in each group. There are significant correlations indicated between T1S and CL (P < 0.05) except for one in a mismatching group of posterior approach (P > 0.05) postoperatively. There are significant correlations indicated between T1S-CL and T1S, CL (P < 0.05) in two groups of anterior approaches except for posterior approaches (P > 0.05).Conclusion:T1S-CL-based surgical approaches indicate that cervical anterior approaches are superior to posterior paths in improving and optimizing sagittal alignment. Posterior approaches may impair alignment in situations of T1S-CL <20°, and deteriorate malalignment established with conditions of T1S-CL >20°.

Introduction Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common problem in our aging population. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of anterior and posterior approaches in the surgical treatment of CSM using validated outcome measures in a prospective cohort study. Materials and Methods Patients with defined clinical features of CSM were recruited from three hospitals in Singapore between October 2009 and December 2010. A total of 17 participants were recruited, and baseline demographic variables and outcome measure scores were established. Namely, the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, Nurick, Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire score, and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Participants underwent decompressive surgery by anterior or posterior approach, with choice of technique left to surgeon preference. Scores were retaken at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery for comparison against baseline, within and between groups through the follow-up period. Results Patients who underwent anterior approach surgery were younger, had fewer comorbidities, less extensive disease, better SF-36 physical functioning, and mJOA scores at baseline. Both groups had clinically significant improvement in scores based on validated minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Score improvement was more sustained in the anterior group, whereas in the posterior group improvement in scores was greatest at 6 months post-decompression, but declined thereafter (albeit to values still three times that at baseline). A patient who underwent posterior approach surgery developed anemia secondary to perioperative blood loss. There were no cases of implant-related complications or cases of revision surgery. Conclusion This study highlights the differences in patient and disease factors influencing choice of surgical approach and shows the safety and efficacy of CSM surgery regardless of approach.

Cervical fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis can have devastating neurological consequences. Currently, several surgical approaches are commonly used to treat these fractures: anterior, posterior, and anterior-posterior. The relative rarity of these fractures has limited the ability of surgeons to objectively determine the merits of each. The authors present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the utility of anterior surgical approaches relative to posterior and anterior-posterior approaches. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, 7 clinical studies were included in the final qualitative and 6 in the final quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 6 compared anterior approaches with anterior-posterior and posterior approaches, while 1 investigated only an anterior approach. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate. A meta-analysis of postoperative neurological improvement revealed no statistically significant differences in gross rates of neurological improvement between anterior and posterior approaches (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10-1.59; p = 0.19). However, when analyzing the mean change in neurological function, patients who underwent anterior approaches had a significantly lower mean change in postoperative neurological function relative to patients who underwent posterior approaches (mean difference [MD] -0.60, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.45; p < 0.00001). An identical trend was seen between anterior and anterior-posterior approaches; there were no statistically significant differences in gross rates of neurological improvement (OR 3.05, 95% CI 0.84-11.15; p = 0.09). However, patients who underwent anterior approaches experienced a lower mean change in neurological function relative to anterior-posterior approaches (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.32; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in complication rates between anterior approaches, posterior approaches, or anterior-posterior approaches, although complication rates trended lower in patients who underwent anterior approaches. The results of this review and meta-analysis demonstrated the varying benefits of anterior approaches relative to posterior and anterior-posterior approaches in treatment of cervical fractures associated with ankylosing spondylitis. While reports demonstrated lower degrees of neurological improvement in anterior approaches, they may benefit patients with less-severe injuries if lower complication rates are desired.

Although anterior or posterior surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) has been extensively studied, the choice of anterior or posterior approach in four-segment CSM remains poorly studied and controversial. We compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of four-segment CSM by posterior laminoplasty (LAMP) and anterior cervical decompression fusion (ACDF) to further explore the merits and demerits of ACDF and LAMP for four-segment CSM in this study. Patients with four-segment CSM who underwent ACDF or LAMP between January 2016 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. We compared the preoperative and postoperative cervical Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, neck disability index (NDI), neck pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, sagittal vertical axis, cervical lordosis (CL), and range of motion. There were 47 and 79 patients in the ACDF and LAMP groups, respectively. Patients in the ACDF group had a significantly longer surgical time and lower estimated blood loss and length of stay than those in the LAMP group. There was no significant difference in the JOA, NDI, or neck pain VAS scores between the two groups preoperatively, but the NDI and neck pain VAS scores in the ACDF group were significantly lower than those in the LAMP group at the final follow-up. The preoperative C2-C7 Cobb angle of the ACDF group was significantly lower than that of the LAMP group but there was no significant difference between the two groups postoperatively. The improvement of C2-C7 Cobb angle (∆C2-C7 Cobb angle) in the ACDF group was significantly higher than that in the LAMP group. This indicated that ACDF can improve CL better than LAMP. The linear regression analysis revealed the ∆C2-C7 Cobb angle was negatively correlated with the final follow-up neck pain VAS scores and NDI. This indicated that patients with better improvement of CL may have a better prognosis. Although both ACDF and LAMP surgeries are effective for four-segment CSM, ACDF can better improve CL and neck pain. For patients with poor CL, we suggest ACDF when both approaches are feasible.

A prospective observational multicenter study. To help solve the debate regarding whether the anterior or posterior surgical approach is optimal for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The optimal surgical approach to treat CSM remains debated with varying opinions favoring anterior versus posterior surgical approaches. We present an analysis of a prospective observational multicenter study examining outcomes of surgical treatment for CSM. A total of 278 subjects from 12 sites in North America received anterior/posterior or combined surgery at the discretion of the surgeon. This study focused on subjects who had either anterior or posterior surgery (n = 264, follow-up rate, 87%). Outcome measures included the modified Japanese Orthopedic Assessment scale, the Nurick scale, the Neck Disability Index, and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey version 2 Physical and Mental Component Scores. One hundred and sixty-nine patients were treated anteriorly and 95 underwent posterior surgery. Anterior surgical cases were younger and had less severe myelopathy as assessed by mJOA and Nurick scores. There were no baseline differences in Neck Disability Index or SF-36 between the anterior and posterior cases. Improvement in the mJOA was significantly lower in the anterior group than posterior group (2.47 vs. 3.62, respectively, P < 0.01), although the groups started at different levels of baseline impairment. The extent of improvement in the Nurick Scale, Neck Disability Index, SF-36 version 2 Physical Component Score, and SF-36 version 2 Mental Component Score did not differ between the groups. Patients with CSM show significant improvements in several health-related outcome measures with either anterior or posterior surgery. Importantly, patients treated with anterior techniques were younger, with less severe impairment and more focal pathology. We demonstrate for the first time that, when patient and disease factors are controlled for, anterior and posterior surgical techniques have equivalent efficacy in the treatment of CSM. 3.

BackgroundNeck pain with high incidence and recurrence rates significantly impairs patients’ quality of life and imposes a considerable economic burden. Traditional Chinese medicine therapies such as Yijinjing exercise and Tuina have shown promising efficacy in alleviating the local symptoms of neck pain. However, there is currently insufficient high-level evidence to robustly support these findings.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining Yijinjing exercise with Tuina for the treatment of neck pain.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Database, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals Full-Text database, and Wanfang database will be systematically searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to September 2025, without language or publication status restrictions. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool will be used to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies, and the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system will be employed to grade the quality of evidence. Heterogeneity will be evaluated through I2 statistics and Cochran’s Q test: a fixed-effect model will be used when I2<50% and P≥.01. If I2≥50% or P<.01, subgroup analysis will be conducted. When heterogeneity still exists, sensitivity analysis or exploratory subgroup analysis will be performed. If it cannot be explained ultimately, the random-effects model will be adopted and the GRADE evidence level will be reduced.ResultsAs of June 2025, we have completed the preliminary screening of titles and abstracts for 573 studies. The full-text screening is expected to be completed by September 2025, and data analysis is planned to be completed by December 2025. About two-thirds of the studies were published after 2015. Geographically, the samples in the studies were highly concentrated in Asia. The results were comprehensively developed around the core outcomes. The primary outcome was presented by changes in the visual analog scale. The secondary outcomes were evaluated by the neck disability index, self-rating anxiety scale score, mean vertebral artery blood flow velocity, and Cobb angle.ConclusionsIf the results of this study confirm the effectiveness of massage combined with Yijinjing, it can provide a direction for the nonpharmaceutical treatment of neck pain. However, some studies have risks of bias such as insufficient standardization of massage operations and difficulty in implementing blinding methods. The expected heterogeneity is significant due to differences in intervention plans and patients’ cultural backgrounds, and the original RCTs are few and regionally concentrated, with limited extrapolation of conclusions. In the future, it is necessary to optimize the plan and supplement data through high-quality multicenter research to enhance reliability.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD420251026508; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251026508International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/77864

The safety and efficacy of anterior and posterior decompression surgery in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) have not been validated in any prospective randomized trial. In this first prospective randomized trial, the patients who had symptoms or signs of DCM were randomly assigned to undergo either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or posterior laminectomy with or without fusion. The primary outcome measures were the change in the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Nurick myelopathy grade 1 year after surgery. The secondary outcome measures were intraoperative and postoperative complications, hospital stay, and Odom's criteria. The follow-up period was at least 1 year. A total of 68 patients (mean age 53 ± 8.3 years, 72.3% men) underwent prospective randomization. There was a significantly better outcome in the NDI and VAS scores in the anterior group at 1 year (p < 0.05). Nurick myelopathy grading showed nonsignificant improvement using the posterior approach group (p = 0.79). The mean operative duration was significantly longer in the anterior group (p < 0.001). No significant difference in postoperative complications was found, except postoperative dysphagia was significantly higher in the anterior group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative patient satisfaction (Odom's criteria) (p = 0.52). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the posterior group (p < 0.001). Among patients with multilevel DCM, the anterior approach was significantly better regarding postoperative pain, NDI, and hospital stay, while the posterior approach was significantly better in terms of postoperative dysphagia and operative duration.

The choice of surgical approach for the management of subaxial cervical spine facet dislocations is a controversial subject amongst spine surgeons. Reasons for this include differences in the technical familiarity and experience of surgeons with the different surgical approaches, and variable interpretation of image studies regarding the existence of a traumatic intervertebral disc herniation and of the neurological status of the patient. Moreover, since the approaches are dissimilar, important variations are likely in neurological, radiographical and clinical outcomes. To compare the effects (benefits and harms) of the different surgical approaches used for treating adults with acute cervical spine facet dislocation. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (9 May 2014), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014 Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to April Week 5 2014), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (8 May 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 Week 18), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (9 May 2014), trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles to May 2014. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared surgical approaches for the management of adults with acute cervical spine facet dislocations with and without spinal cord injury. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We included one randomised and one quasi-randomised controlled trial involving a total of 94 participants and reporting results for a maximum of 84 participants. One trial included patients with spinal cord injuries and the other included patients without spinal cord injuries. Both trials compared anterior versus posterior surgical approaches. Both trials were at high risk of bias, including selection bias (one trial), performance bias (both trials) and attrition bias (one trial). Data were pooled for one outcome only: non-union. Reflecting also the imprecision of the results, the evidence was deemed to be of very low quality for all outcomes; which means that our level of uncertainty about the estimates is high.Neither trial found differences between the two approaches in neurological recovery or status, as shown in one study by small clinically insignificant differences in NASS (Northern American Spine Society) neurological scores (0 to 100: optimal score) at one year of follow-up: anterior mean score: 85.23 versus posterior mean score: 83.86; mean difference (MD) 1.37 favouring anterior approach, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.76 to 12.50; 33 participants; 1 study). The same trial found no relevant between-approach differences at one year in patient-reported quality of life measured using the 36-item Short Form Survey physical (MD -0.08, 95% CI -7.26 to 7.10) and mental component scores (MD 2.88, 95% CI -3.32 to 9.08). Neither trial found evidence of significant differences in long-term pain, or non-union (2/38 versus 2/46; risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 34.91). One trial found better sagittal and more 'normal' alignment after the anterior approach (MD -10.31 degrees favouring anterior approach, 95% CI -14.95 degrees to -5.67 degrees), while the other trial reported no significant differences in cervical alignment. There was insufficient evidence to indicate between-group differences in medical adverse events, rates of instrumentation failure and infection. One trial found that the several participants had voice and swallowing disorders after anterior approach surgery (11/20) versus none (0/22) in the posterior approach group: RR 25.19, 95% CI 1.58 to 401.58); all had recovered by three months. Very low quality evidence from two trials indicated little difference in long-term neurological status, pain or patient-reported quality of life between anterior and posterior surgical approaches to the management of individuals with subaxial cervical spine facet dislocations. Sagittal alignment may be better achieved with the anterior approach. There was insufficient evidence available to indicate between-group differences in medical adverse events, rates of instrumentation failure and infection. The disorders of the voice and swallowing that occurred exclusively in the anterior approach group all resolved by three months. We are very uncertain about this evidence and thus we cannot say whether one approach is better than the other. There was no evidence available for other approaches. Further higher quality multicentre randomised trials are warranted.

A direct lateral approach to the hip is described which allows adequate access for orientation of the implant, for the insertion ofthe cement and for the correction ofdiscrepancy in leg length. An anatomical observation was made that the gluteus medius muscle is inserted into the greater trochanter by a tendon and that the axis of the shaft of the femur lies anterior to the main bulk of the muscle which was left