Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion Group Research Articles

What's New in Spine Surgery.

What's New in Spine Surgery.

Efficacy and safety of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) through mini-incision and posterior laminoplasty (LAMP) for treatment of long-level cervical spondylosis: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) through mini-incision and posterior laminoplasty for long-level cervical spondylosis were investigated.MethodFrom January 2018 to September 2019, clinical patients data with 3–4 segments (C3–7) cervical spondylotic radiculopathy, cervical spondylotic myelopathy, or mixed cervical spondylosis who received ACDF (42 cases) throughwith mini-incision or LAMP (36 cases) treatment were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The operative time, bleeding volume, incisive length, and hospital stay were recorded. Moreover, the intervertebral height, functional segment height, cervical lordosis, cervical hyperextension and hyperflexion range-of-motion (ROM) and ROM in all directions of the cervical spine before and after the operation were measured. Additionally, all relevant postoperative complications were also recorded. Then, the therapeutic effects of both surgical methods were investigated.ResultsPatients in the ACDF group had less bleeding, shorter incision, and fewer hospitalization days than the LAMP group. There was no significant difference in JOA, VAS score of the upper limb, NDI score after surgery between two groups. Postoperative intervertebral height and functional segment height in the ACDF group were significantly higher than those before the operation, and postoperative functional segment height of the ACDF group was significantly higher than that of the LAMP group. Moreover, the postoperative cervical lordosis angle in the ACDF group was significantly larger than the LAMP group. There was no significant difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM in all directions of the cervical spine for the two groups.ConclusionsBoth ACDF through mini-incision and LAMP are effective treatments for long-level cervical spondylosis. However, ACDF through mini-incision shows minor trauma, less bleeding, fast recovery, and it is beneficial for cervical lordosis reconstruction.

Impact of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Driving Disability: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial With 10-Year Follow-Up

Driving an automobile requires the ability to turn the neck laterally. Anecdotally, patients with multilevel fusions often complain about restricted turning motion. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) on driving disability improvement at 10-year follow-up after a 2-level procedure. In the original randomized controlled trial, patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy at 2 levels underwent CDA or ACDF. The driving disability question from the Neck Disability Index was rated from 0 to 5 years preoperatively and up to 10 years postoperatively. Severity of driving disability was categorized into "none" (score 0), "mild" (1 or 2), and "severe" (3, 4, or 5). Score and severity were compared between groups. Out of 397 patients, 148 CDA and 118 ACDF patients had 10-year follow-up. Driving disability scores were not different between the groups preoperatively (CDA: 2.65; ACDF: 2.71, P = 0.699). Postoperatively, the scores in the CDA group were significantly lower than those in the ACDF group at 5 (0.60 vs 1.08, P ≤ 0.001) and 10 years (0.66 vs 1.07, P = 0.001). Mean score improvement in the CDA group was significantly greater than the ACDF group at 10-year follow-up (-1.94 vs -1.63, P = 0.003). The majority of patients reported severe driving disability (CDA: 56.9%, ACDF: 58.0%, P = 0.968) before surgery. After surgery, a greater proportion of patients in the CDA group had neck pain-free driving compared with the ACDF group at 5 (63.3% vs 41.8%, P < 0.001) and 10 years (61.8% vs 41.2%, P = 0.003). In patients with cervical radiculopathy/myelopathy and 2-level disease, CDA provided greater improvements in driving disability as compared with ACDF at 10-year follow-up. This is the first report of its kind. This finding may be attributable to preservation of motion associated with CDA. This study provides valuable information regarding the improvement of driving disability after both CDA and ACDF. It demonstrates that both procedures result in significant improvements, with CDA resulting in even better improvements than ACDF, up to 10 year follow-up.

Comparison of Radiographic Reconstruction and Clinical Improvement between Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Background The surgical management of cervical degenerative disc degeneration (CDDD) has not reached a consensus. Artificial cervical disc replacement (ACDR) has been shown to be efficient in reducing symptoms after CDDD, although the topic remains highly controversial in this field. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ACDR on the treatment of CDDD on the aspect of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods This was a retrospective comparative study with 47 patients who underwent single-level ACDR and 46 patients who underwent single-level ACDF. The radiographic reconstruction was assessed by the cervical sagittal alignment parameters, consisting of two aspects, distance and angle, such as cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), cervical lordosis (CL), T1 slope (T1s), and intervertebral space height (ISH). The clinical improvement was assessed by patient-related outcomes (PROs), consisting of two aspects, relief of axial neck pain and recovery of cervical dysfunction, measured through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA). Results Significant variations were achieved on aspects of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement after ACDR (P < 0.05), which were similar to that of the ACDF group (P < 0.05). A significantly larger postoperative range of motion (ROM) was found in patients less than 45 years of age in the ACDR group (P < 0.05). In addition, a significantly better postoperative JOA was found in patients with a preoperative ISH less than 4 mm in the ACDF group than that in the ACDR group (P < 0.05). Other than that mentioned above, no significant variations in radiographic and clinical outcomes were found between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions Overall, this study showed that a similar capability in terms of radiographic reconstruction and clinical improvement was found between the two methods. Specific concerns should be analyzed while choosing between an ACDR and an ACDF. It should be pointed out that, based on our experience, if the patient is younger, ACDR is recommended; for patients with preoperative ISH less than 4 mm, ACDF is more recommended.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Combined Posterior Transfacet Screw Fixation and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery for Unilateral Cervical Facet Fracture with Traumatic Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IntroductionCombined lateral mass screw-rod (LMSR) fixation and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery is currently the most widely described and accepted procedure for subaxial cervical facet fracture with traumatic disc herniation. Recent biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the use of transfacet screw (TFS) can be considered as a simple alternative method to LMSR. However, to date, little is known about the feasibility and effectiveness of TFS in the combined approach. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic results of TFS + ACDF surgery and LMSR + ACDF surgery, and to provide a less invasive alternative technique for spine surgeons.MethodWe retrospectively reviewed patients with unilateral cervical facet fracture with traumatic disc herniation who had undergone TFS + ACDF (N = 36) or LMSR + ACDF (N = 34) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical assessments, which included American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS), visual analog scale for neck pain (VASSNP) score and patient satisfaction, were made before surgery and at follow-up. For the radiographic outcomes, the instability parameters of segmental kyphosis and sagittal translation were measured.ResultsThe demographic characteristics of the two groups of patients were similar. In terms of clinical outcomes, both two groups were associated with significant improvements at the final follow-up. There were no significant between-group differences in VASSNP score or patient satisfaction (both P > 0.05). The LMSR + ACDF group suffered more blood loss and had longer operative time (mean 206.0 ml; mean 274.4 min, respectively) than in the TFS + ACDF group (mean 110.0 ml; mean 142.8 min, respectively) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). For the radiographic results, the segmental kyphosis and sagittal translation were significantly corrected after surgery in both groups (P < 0.001 for both groups), and no significant differences were found between groups at the last follow-up (P > 0.05).ConclusionIn the absence of any self-evident clinical and radiographic benefits of one technique over the other (TFS + ACDF vs. LMSR + ACDF), we recommend combined TFS + ACDF surgery as a safe and less invasive alternative treatment for unilateral cervical facet fractures with traumatic disc herniation, as it was associated with a shorter duration of surgery and lower estimated blood loss than LMSR + ACDF surgery.

Assessment of Acoustic Voice Parameters After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a surgical treatment approach for cervical spine diseases. Alteration in voice quality is a commonly encountered concern after perilaryngeal neck surgeries. Vocal cord paralysis is a known complication of ACDF. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of ACDF on acoustic voice parameters and to compare ACDF with posterior cervical discectomy and fusion (PCDF).MethodologyIn this study, we investigated 52 patients admitted to the hospital with symptoms related to cervical spinal cord compression and underwent spine surgery in the Neurosurgery Clinic (26 underwent ACDF and 26 underwent PCDF). For standardization, 25 healthy age and gender-matched volunteers were evaluated as the control group. The voices of the patients were analyzed digitally preoperatively and at first and third months postoperatively. As acoustic parameters, jitter, shimmer, basal frequency, and normalized noise energy were recorded. All patients were examined preoperatively and postoperatively for laryngeal pathology and were asked to fill the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10).ResultsThe changes in four of the five acoustic parameters from baseline to postoperative first-month assessment in the ACDF group were significant (p < 0.05). These parameters almost approached normal values in the analysis performed at three months. In the PCDF group, no significant differences were seen in the acoustic analysis of the patients in comparison to the preoperative and the first and third-month assessments. The VHI-10 values were not significantly different among the patients who underwent ACDF or PCDF or control patients at any postoperative time point.ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that voice parameters in patients who underwent ACDF worsened significantly after the surgery compared with patients who underwent PCDF; however, these changes recovered within three months postoperatively. The possible causes for these findings include the retraction of the vagus and the recurrent laryngeal nerve, postoperative edema of strap muscles, intubation trauma to the vocal folds, and other laryngeal structures.

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Cervical Laminectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of 4-Level Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

ObjectiveTo assess and compare the therapeutic effects of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Laminectomy and Fusion (CLF) in the treatment of 4‐level cervical.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review on 39 patients with 4‐level CSM who underwent ACDF or CLF in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2010 to December 2018. The patients were divided into ACDF group and CLF group according to the treatment. The operative index was evaluated based on intraoperative blood loss and operation time. The functional outcomes including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and visual analogue scale (VAS) of axial pain were compared. The Cobb angle, Cobb angle improvement rate, range of motion (ROM) and ROM loss ratio were measured for radiographic evaluation.ResultsNo major complications or deaths occurred. The average age at baseline was 55 years. There was no significant difference between the ACDF and CLF group in follow‐up time (26.29 months, 25.39 months, P > 0.05). The intraoperative blood loss was higher in the CLF group than in the ACDF group (692.67 ± 38.68 vs 392.14 ± 128.06, P < 0.05). The operation time was longer in the CLF group than in the ACDF group (206.60 ± 49.37 vs 172.64 ± 31.96, P < 0.05). Significant improvements in the VAS and JOA scores were observed in both groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference in VAS was found between the ACDF and CLF groups (P < 0.05). There was a significantly larger improvement rate of JOA score in the ACDF group than in the CLF group (60.9% ± 9.57% vs 31.5% ± 15.70%, P < 0.05). There were two (9.6%) cases with complications In the ACDF group, including one (4.8%) case of dysphagia and one (4.8%) case of pharyngodynia. In the CLF group, two patients (11.1%) developed C5 palsy. No significant difference in the incidence of complications, ROM loss ratio and Cobb angle improvement rate was found between group ACDF and group CLF (all P < 0.05).ConclusionBoth ACDF and CLF were effective in the treatment of multi‐level cervical spondylosis and ACDF is more suitable for patients with 4‐level CSM.

Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion and Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectivesPatients with lateral cervical disc and foraminal pathology can be treated with anterior and posterior approaches including anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF), cervical total disc arthroplasty(TDA), and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy(MIS-PCF). Although MIS-PCF may have some advantages over the anterior approaches, few comparative studies and meta-analyses have been done to assess superiority.MethodsThis study includes a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy to either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical total disc arthroplasty.ResultsIn comparing patients undergoing ACDF and MIS-PCF, operative time ranged from 68 to 97.8 minutes in the ACDF group compared to 28 to 93.9 minutes in the MIS-PCF group. Mean postoperative length of stay ranged from 33.84 to 112.8 hours in the ACDF group compared to 13.68 to 83.6 hours in the MIS-PCF group. The total complication rates were 3.72% in the ACDF group and 3.73% in the MIS-PCF group. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out which failed to show a statistically significant difference in the complication rate between the two procedures(OR .91; 95% CI 0.13, 6.43; P = .92, I2 = 59%). The total reoperation rate was 3.5% in the ACDF group and 5.4% in the MIS-PCF group. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out which failed to show a statistically significant difference in the reoperation rate between the two procedures(OR .66; 95% CI 0.33, 1.33; P = .25, I2 = 0). In comparing patients undergoing TDA and MIS-PCF, operative time ranged from 90.3 to 106.7 minutes in the TDA group compared to 77.4 to 93.9 minutes in the MIS-PCF group. Mean postoperative length of stay ranged from 103.2 to 165.6 hours in the TDA group and 93.6 to 98.4 hours in the MIS-PCF group. The complication rate ranged from 23.5 to 28.6% in the TDA group and 0 to 14.3% in the MIS-PCF group. The overall reoperation rates were 2.6% in the TDA group and 10.2% in the MIS-PCF group.ConclusionsThere is no clear superiority between MIS-PCF and ACDF/TDA in terms of operative time, postoperative length of stay, or rate of complications/reoperations. Further studies with increased follow-up intervals >48 months, and higher sample sizes are necessary to determine the true superiority of MIS-PCF and anterior neck approaches in treatment of lateral disc and foraminal pathology.

Correlation between Preoperative Serum Levels of Calcium, Phosphate, and Intact Parathyroid Hormone and Radiological Outcomes in Spinal Interbody Fusion among End-Stage Renal Disease Patients.

Spinal fusion surgery for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is a clinical challenge. This study aimed to investigate whether postoperative radiological outcomes are related to preoperative serum calcium, phosphate, or intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) levels in patients with ESRD who underwent spinal interbody fusion surgery. This study included 62-consecutive patients with ESRD who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery for symptomatic spinal disorder. The most recent preoperative serum calcium, phosphate, and iPTH levels were recorded, and the postoperative radiographic outcomes were assessed. A significant correlation was found between the occurrence of cage subsidence and higher blood phosphate, calcium–phosphate product (Ca × P), and iPTH levels in the TLIF group. The occurrence of pedicle screw loosening was related to higher blood phosphate and Ca × P product in the TLIF group. However, no correlation was found between the fusion grades and the serum levels in either the TLIF or ACDF groups. These results indicated that higher preoperative serum phosphate and Ca × P product are risk factors for both cage subsidence and screw loosening in patients with ESRD who underwent TLIF surgery. Higher iPTH levels are also a possible risk factor for cage subsidence.

Intervertebral Foramen Width Is an Important Factor in Deciding Additional Uncinate Process Resection in ACDF-a Retrospective Study.

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been established as a classic procedure for the management of cervical radiculopathy. However, it is unclear whether combined uncinate process resection (UPR) is necessary for treating cervical radiculopathy. Here, we investigated the clinical outcome of ACDF combined with UPR compared to ACDF alone to determine the necessity of UPR in treating cervical radiculopathy.Hypothesis: Uncinate process resection may be necessary in certain patients along with ACDF to achieve better clinical outcomes of cervical radiculopathy.Patients and Methods: Fifty-five patients underwent ACDF with UPR, and 126 patients without UPR were reviewed. The width and height of the intervertebral foramen were measured by 45° oblique X-rays. We also measured the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and visual analog scale (VAS) score. C2–C7 Cobb angles were obtained from all patients pre- and post-operatively. Meanwhile, linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between the clinical outcomes and the intervertebral foramen width before surgery.Results: Linear regression analysis indicated that the improvement in the JOA and VAS scores was irrelevant to both the pre-operative width of the intervertebral foramen (wIVF) and the height of the intervertebral foramen (hIVF) in the ACDF+UPR group. However, pre-operative wIVF was associated with post-operative JOA and VAS scores in the ACDF alone group. Those with pre-operative wIVF <3 mm in the ACDF group had the least improvement in post-operative clinical symptoms due to the change in wIVF (P > 0.05). The ACDF group whose wIVF was over 3 mm showed similar clinical outcomes to the ACDF + UPR group, and wIVF significantly increased post-operatively (P < 0.05). The fusion rate and C2–C7 Cobb angles did not show significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).Discussion: Our current findings suggest that UPR should be considered when wIVF is <3 mm pre-operatively. However, there is no need to sacrifice the uncovertebral joint in ACDF when the pre-operative wIVF is over 3 mm.Level of Evidence: Level III.

4. Single-level cervical disc replacement using a PEEK-on-ceramic implant: Results of a multicenter FDA IDE trial with 24-month follow up

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Many early cervical total disc replacements (TDRs) produced motion through a ball-and-socket action, with metal endplates articulating with a plastic core. PEEK is used increasingly for spinal implants due to its mechanical properties and lack of artifact on imaging. A cervical TDR was designed with commercially pure titanium-coated PEEK endplates and a biconvex zirconia toughened alumina ceramic core. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> The purpose of this study was to compare this PEEK-on-ceramic TDR to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to treat single-level cervical disc degeneration. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> This was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial comparing the investigational group to a propensity-matched historic control group. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> Patients received the PEEK-on-ceramic Simplify® Cervical Artificial Disc (n=150 patients from 16 sites). The historic control group included 117 propensity-matched ACDF patients from an earlier cervical TDR IDE trial employing the same inclusion/exclusion criteria. All patients were treated for single-level symptomatic cervical disc degeneration. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> The primary outcome was a composite 5-point success classification at 24-month follow-up requiring: >15 point (of 100) improvement in Neck Disability Index (NDI) score; 2) maintenance/improvement in neurologic status; 3) no device failure; 4) no reoperation/revision/removal and/or supplemental fixation at the index level, and 5) no major adverse events. Outcome measures included NDI, visual analog scale (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, neurological status, adverse events and subsequent surgery. Radiographic assessment included flexion/extension range of motion. Facet joints were assessed at 24 months comparing pre- to postoperative MRI images using a published 4-point scale. <h3>METHODS</h3> Evaluations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively within 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The control was propensity match with ACDF patients from an earlier TDR vs ACDF trial, which used the same inclusion criteria and primary outcome assessments. <h3>RESULTS</h3> The overall composite success rate was significantly greater in the TDR group vs ACDF (93.0% vs 73.6%; p<0.001). Mean NDI, neck pain and arm pain scores improved significantly in both groups at all follow-up points. Mean NDI scores in the TDR group were significantly lower than ACDF scores at all follow-up points all p<0.01). Secondary surgical intervention was undertaken in 4 (2.7%) patients at the index level in the TDR group and 6 (5.1%) in the ACDF group. There were no significant differences in the rates of serious adverse events when comparing the two groups. The mean segmental range of motion of the treated level in the TDR group was 7.3° prior to surgery. This increased to 8.6° at 3-month follow-up and continued to increase to 9.6° at 24 months (p<0.001). Facet joint assessment by MRI at 24-month follow-up in the TDR group showed little change from preoperative. <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> The results of this study found that the Simplify® Cervical Artificial Disc produced outcomes similar or superior on some measures, including superiority in the composite success classification, compared with ACDF, for the treatment of single-level symptomatic cervical disc degeneration. ROM at the treated level increased from the preoperative value and was maintained throughout follow-up. Safety of the PEEK-on-ceramic disc was established with no device failures in the series. These results support that the device is a viable alternative to ACDF. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> Simplify Cervical Disc Replacement (Approved for this indication)

160. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion vs cervical disc replacement for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: An MCID comparison

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Comparative studies of patients with cervical spondylosis treated with either cervical disc replacement (CDR) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are sparse in number. Previous studies have demonstrated good outcomes in patients undergoing CDR with moderate cervical spondylosis involving the disc, uncovertebral or facet joints. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> To compare clinical outcomes in patients with moderate cervical spondylosis undergoing CDR vs, the gold standard, ACDF. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> Patients who underwent one or 2-level CDR or ACDF with moderate cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS-Neck, VAS-Arm and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) computer adaptive test score. <h3>Methods</h3> Patients who underwent one or two-level CDR or ACDF with moderate cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. Cervical spondylosis was graded by assessing disc height, facet arthrosis, and uncovertebral joint degeneration. Each of these characteristics was given a score of 0, 1 or 2 with increasing scores correlating with more severe disease. Demographic, operative, and cervical spondylosis grades and achievement of MCID for each PRO was analyzed and compared between the two groups. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 66 patients were included in the present study, of which 35 (53%) were treated with CDR and 31 (47%) with ACDF. Average follow up was 15.5 months. Patients treated with ACDF were significantly older (58.7 vs 43.0 years-old, P<0.01). Other demographic variables were similar between the two groups. There were no significant differences in operative time, level of surgery, intraoperative complications, inpatient complications and length of stay between the two groups. The preoperative cervical spondylotic grade was similar between the two groups (1.8 vs 2.2, P=0.27). At final follow-up, patient reported outcomes improved significantly compared to preoperative values in both treatment groups. There was no significant difference in the absolute value for each patient reported outcome at final follow-up between the two groups. In the CDR group, greater than 70% of patients achieved the MCID in all four patient reported outcomes assessed; in the ACDF group, greater than 50% of patients achieved the MCID in all four patient reported outcomes assessed. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID when comparing CDR to ACDF. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The results of the present study demonstrate that patients with moderate cervical spondylosis treated with CDR reported similar postoperative patient reported outcomes to those treated with ACDF. The use of CDR in patients with spondylosis of the uncovertebral joint, facet joint, or disc space height loss may result in similar outcomes compared to ACDF treated patients, while preserving motion and avoiding the biologic demand of obtaining a fusion across the involved cervical levels. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

84. Surgeon specialty effect on early outcomes of elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: an updated propensity matched and subgroup analysis of 10,116 patients

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Comparative effectiveness research has a vital role in health reform and policies. Specialty training is one of these provider-side variables and surgeons who were trained in different specialties may have different outcomes upon performing the same procedure. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> To investigate the impact of spine surgeon specialty on early perioperative outcome of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Retrospective, 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> A total of 21,211 patients who underwent ACDF between 2016-2018 were reviewed from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Outcomes included 30-day perioperative morbidity and mortality measures that are predefined in the ACS-NSQIP database. <h3>METHODS</h3> Patients were stratified by the specialty of surgeon performing the procedure (neurosurgery vs orthopedic surgery), and the number of levels operated on (single- vs multi-level surgery) <h3>RESULTS</h3> Patients operated on by neurosurgeons were more likely to be older, smokers, of Hispanic ethnicity, functionally dependent, and to have higher BMI, an ASA class 3 or more, baseline dyspnea, bleeding disorders, and myelopathy. In both groups (single/multi-level ACDF), cases in the orthopedic surgery cohort were more likely to have shorter operation time (104 vs 133 minutes/ 138 vs 164 minutes), longer total hospital stay (41 vs 24 hours/ 46 vs 25 hours), higher return to operating room rates within the same admission (2.1% vs 0.7%/ 2.4% vs 0.6%), be discharged to destination other than home (4.6% vs 1.2%/ 4.9% vs 1.0%), be discharged after postoperative day 1 (11.9% vs 6.7%/ 18.9% vs 10.1%), higher perioperative blood transfusion rate (2.1% vs 0.4%/ 3.1% vs 0.6%) and higher sepsis rates (0.7% vs 0.2%/ 0.7% vs 0.1%). In the single-level ACDF group, cases in the orthopedic surgery cohort had higher readmission (4.1% vs 1.9%) and unplanned intubation rates (1.1% vs 0.1%). Other outcome measures and mortality rates were similar among the cohorts. <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> Significant differences in early perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons were noted. These differences have significant clinical and cost implications for patients, physicians, payors and health systems. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Single-Level Cervical Disc Replacement Using a PEEK-on-Ceramic Implant: Results of a Multicenter FDA IDE Trial With 24-Month Follow-up.

Many early cervical total disc replacements (TDRs) produced motion through a ball-and-socket action, with metal endplates articulating with a plastic core. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is used increasingly for spinal implants due to its mechanical properties and lack of artifacts on imaging. A TDR was designed with titanium-coated PEEK endplates and a ceramic core. The purpose of this study was to compare this TDR with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to treat single-level cervical disc degeneration. This was a prospective, nonrandomized, historically controlled, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial. Patients received the PEEK-on-ceramic Simplify® Cervical Artificial Disc (n = 150). The historic control group included 117 propensity-matched ACDF patients from an earlier IDE trial. The primary outcome was a composite success classification at the 24-month follow-up. Outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), neurological status, adverse events, subsequent surgery, a visual analog scale assessing neck and arm pain, and the Dysphagia Handicap Index. Radiographic assessment included flexion/extension range of motion and heterotopic ossification. Facet joints were assessed at 24 months using MRI. The success rate was significantly greater in the TDR group vs the ACDF group (93.0% vs 73.6%; P < .001). Mean NDI, neck pain, and arm pain scores improved significantly in both groups at all follow-up points. Mean NDI scores in the TDR group were significantly lower than ACDF scores at all follow-up points. There were no significant differences in the rates of serious adverse events. The range of motion of the TDR level had increased significantly by 3 months and remained so throughout follow-up. Facet joint assessment by MRI in the TDR group showed little change from preoperation. The TDR had an acceptable safety profile and a significantly greater composite success rate than ACDF. These results support that the PEEK-on-ceramic TDR is a viable alternative to ACDF for single-level symptomatic disc degeneration. This study found that the PEEK-on-ceramic TDR is a viable treatment for symptoms related to cervical disc degeneration and offers similar or superior outcomes compared with fusion. 2.

Comparison between Anterior Cervical Decompression with Fusion and Posterior Cervical Fusion with Wide Facetectomy for Treatment of Severe Bony Foraminal Stenosis.

ObjectiveTo compare the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with wide facetectomy in the treatment of parallel-shaped bony foraminal stenosis (FS). MethodsThirty-six patients underwent surgery due to one-or-two levels of parallel-shaped cervical FS. ACDF was performed in 16 patients, and PCF using CPS was performed in 20 patients. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Standardized outcome measures such as Numeric rating scale (NRS) score for arm/neck pain and Neck disability index (NDI) were evaluated. Cervical radiographs were used to compare the C2–7 Cobb’s angle, segmental angle, and fusion rates. ResultsThere was an improvement in NRS scores after both approaches for radicular arm pain (mean change -6.78 vs. -8.14, p=0.012), neck pain (mean change -1.67 vs. -4.36, p=0.038), and NDI score (-19.69 vs. -18.15, p=0.794). The segmental angle improvement was greater in the ACDF group than in the posterior group (9.4°±2.7° vs. 3.3°±5.1°, p=0.004). However, there was no significant difference in C2–7 Cobb angle between groups (16.2°±7.9° vs. 14.8°±8.5°, p=0.142). As a complication, dysphagia was observed in one case of the ACDF group. ConclusionIn the treatment of parallel-shaped bony FS up to two surgical levels, segmental angle improvement was more favorable in patients who underwent ACDF. However, PCF with wide facetectomy using CPS should be considered as an alternative treatment option in cases where the anterior approach is burdensome.

Comparing Mid-Term Outcomes Between ACDF and Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy.

Retrospective cohort study. To compare minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy. MI-PCF has been shown to be equally effective as ACDF in treating cervical radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis and similar pathologies. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that preserving motion and avoiding fusion reduces risk for adjacent segment disease, but potentially increases risk for subsequent revision to an ACDF. With similar short-term outcomes and substantial advantages, MI-PCF may be an effective alternative to ACDF for addressing appropriate cervical pathology. A retrospective review was performed to identify patients between 2009 and 2013 who underwent ACDF or MI-PCF with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Demographic data was recorded. Revision rates and average time to revision between cohorts were compared. Clinical outcomes were assessed at each follow-up visit with Neck Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale for neck and Visual Analog Scale for arm pain scores. All complications were reviewed. Standard binomial and categorical comparative analysis were performed. A total of 251 consecutive patients were included (205 ACDF, 46 MI-PCF). Mean follow-ups for the ACDF and MI-PCF groups were 98.3 and 95.9 months, respectively. Complication rates were 2.9% and 2.2% for the ACDF and MI-PCF cohorts, respectively (P = 0.779). Revision rates were 7.8% for the ACDF cohort and 8.7% for the MI-PCF cohort (P = 0.840). Both cohorts experienced significant improvements in their clinical scores compared with their preoperative values. Final Visual Analog Scale for neck pain (ACDF: 2.6; MI-PCF: 1.6) and Visual Analog Scale for arm pain (ACDF: 1.1; MI-PCF: 0.4) scores differed significantly at final follow-up (P = < 0.001; P = < 0.001). MI-PCF is a safe and effective alternative to ACDF in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, demonstrating substantial benefit. After final follow-up, MI-PCF demonstrated superior improvements in Visual Analog Scale scores, without increased complication or revision rates.Level of Evidence: 3.

Significance of Cervical Spine Computed Tomography Hounsfield Units to Predict Bone Mineral Density and the Subsidence After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

This study was a retrospective review. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation analysis between Hounsfield units (HU) and dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) based on the clinical results of patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. There is no technique to directly measure bone mineral density (BMD) in the cervical spine. As computed tomography is a very popular preoperative planning modality, using the HU value from that analysis to predict osteoporosis is important for patient outcomes and applications in the clinical field. We reviewed the records for 235 patients who underwent 1-level (n=120) or 2-level (n=115) ACDF surgery. In the 1-level ACDF group, the HU was measured from C3 to C6 vertebra, while that for the 2-level ACDF group was measured from 3 surgical index vertebrae. The correlation patterns were analyzed with the corresponding DXA (T-score) for each patient. Subsidence of fusion segment was defined as change in distance between plate-tip and upper (lower) margin of the vertebra (index level) after 4 months of follow-up. In addition, to determine the relevant factors that influence fusion segment subsidence, other preoperative (C2 slope, C7 slope, C2-C7 angle, and C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis) and postoperative parameters (coronal angle and segmental angle change) were measured. The correlation coefficient between HU and DXA ranged from 0.57 to 0.71 in the 1-level ACDF group and from 0.59 to 0.66 in the 2-level ACDF group. The correlation between HU and DXA was statistically significant regardless of the degree of anterior osteophyte (r=-0.65 to 0.78). Total subsidence height was 3.8 mm after ACDF, and both HU and DXA were statistically correlated with total subsidence (r=0.26-0.28). In multivariate analysis, HU (middle vertebra) value was statistically associated with the degree of total subsidence. The high-subsidence group (≥4.5 mm) showed smaller HU values (284.1 vs. 316.0) and T-scores (-0.5 vs. 0.1) compared to the low-subsidence group (<4.5 mm). The discrepancy group, defined as cases with excess plate shift on 1 side, also showed smaller HU values (260.4 vs. 312.4) and higher degrees of total subsidence than the matched group. The correlation between HU in cervical computed tomography and lumbar DXA (T-score) was statistically significant in both 1-level and 2-level ACDF. The level of BMD (HU or DXA) is a very important factor for clinically determining the amount and regularity of subsidence after ACDF. Therefore, HU can be a good alternative assessment to accurately reflect as much of the BMD degree as DXA in the cervical spine.

Comparison Between Three- and Four-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes

We compared the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes after 3- and 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in a retrospective cohort study. Patients who had undergone primary 3- or 4-level ACDF were retrospectively identified. The demographic data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected through a review of the medical records. PROM surveys were administered preoperatively for baseline measurements and at 1 year postoperatively. The surveys included the Neck Disability Index, 12-item short-form physical component summary, 12-item short-form mental component summary, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain. The cervical sagittal alignment parameters included C2-C7 lordosis, segmental lordosis, the sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and the T1 slope. Multivariate regression models were used to compare the changes in the PROMs and radiographic measurements over time between 3- and 4-level ACDF. Correlation coefficients were calculated to compare the delta scores for the PROMs and radiographic measurements. The VAS scores for neck and arm pain had significantly improved from baseline in both cohorts. Only the 3-level group showed significant improvements perioperatively in the Neck Disability Index and 12-item short-form physical component summary. No significant differences were found in the improvement in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. The pooled results demonstrated a significant negative correlation between the perioperative changes in segmental lordosis and VAS scores for arm pain. A significant negative correlation was also found between the perioperative changes in the SVA and 12-item short-form mental component summary and VAS scores for neck pain. C2-C7 lordosis significantly increased postoperatively only in the 3-level ACDF group. Patients undergoing both 3- and 4-level ACDF experienced significant clinical improvement without significant differences between the 2 groups. The radiographic measures of segmental lordosis and SVA also correlated with the changes in clinical outcomes.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Conservative Treatment for Cervical Angina Conservative Treatment.

Study Design:This study employed a retrospective study design.Objective:This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and those of conservative treatment for patients with cervical angina.Summary of Background Data:Cervical angina is typically characterized by intolerable and paroxysmal angina-like precordial pain, which is caused by cervical disk degeneration in patients without definitive cardiovascular abnormalities. Diagnosis is either delayed or neglected because of its various clinical manifestations. Whether conservative or surgical treatment is appropriate remains controversial because of the lack of comparative studies.Materials and Methods:From 2009 to 2016, 163 patients with cervical angina with advanced chest pain, tightness, or palpitation were retrospectively studied. Twenty-three patients underwent ACDF, and the other 140 patients were treated nonsurgically by medication, physical therapy, collar immobilization, or stellate ganglion block. Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and 20-point autonomic nervous system (ANS) score were assessed pretreatment and posttreatment. Patients’ satisfaction was assessed using the Odom criteria.Results:The average age of the patients was 50 years, and most of them were females. The average follow-up was 25.5 months. The pretreatment JOA and 20-point ANS scores in the conservative and ACDF groups were 13.3 versus 11.7 (P=0.110) and 13.0 versus 13.3 (P=0.928), respectively. Generalized estimating equation analysis showed that posttreatment JOA and ANS scores at each observation interval improved significantly in the ACDF group (P<0.001). Angina-like symptoms also improved significantly in the ACDF group (P<0.001). During an average 2-year follow-up, good or excellent results were obtained in 78.2% of surgical patients and 35% of nonsurgical patients.Conclusions:Compared with conservative therapy, surgical treatment with ACDF for cervical angina provided better and more consistent relief from angina-like symptoms and overall sympathetic symptoms.Level of Evidence:Level III.

The Effect of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Cervical Sagittal Vertical Axis and Lordosis with Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) can induce lordosis and improve cervical sagittal vertical axis (SVA), but multilevel ACDF may inadvertently increase cervical SVA because of insufficient lordosis induction. Patients who underwent 1-, 2-, or ≥3-level ACDF in the subaxial spine with minimum 2-year follow up were retrospectively studied. C2-C7 Cobb angle (lordosis), cervical SVA, and T1 slope were measured preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at last follow-up. Inclusion criteria were met by 127 patients. There were no differences in baseline demographics among 1-, 2-, and ≥3-level ACDF groups. Mean follow-up was 43.7 months (range, 24-142 months). Increase of cervical SVA immediately postoperatively was 1.94 mm,-1.44 mm, and 7.25 mm for 1-, 2-, and ≥3-level ACDF (P= 0.041) and at last follow-up was 2.97 mm, 0.70 mm, and 9.32 mm for 1-, 2-, and ≥3-level ACDF (P= 0.026). At last follow-up, 2-level ACDF patients had the greatest decrease in T1 slope (-0.43°) compared with increase of 2.71° for 1-level and 2.84° for ≥3-level patients (P= 0.028). In all 3 groups, segmental (ACDF levels) lordosis, cervical SVA, and T1 slope did not decrease from immediate postoperative to last follow-up. Only 2-level ACDF maintained C2-7 lordosis (2.16°) compared with loss of lordosis in 1-level (-0.84°) and ≥3-level (-2.00°) ACDF (P= 0.008) at last follow-up. Linear regression analysis showed that T1 slope had no relationship with correction of cervical SVA (P= 0.5310) but had a significant correlation with Cobb angle loss of C2-C7 lordosis (P= 0.0016). Compared with 1- and 2-level ACDF, ≥3-level ACDF resulted in significant increase of cervical SVA and loss of overall lordosis. Compared with 1- and ≥3-level ACDF, 2-level ACDF had the greatest ability to maintain lordosis. T1 slope had a significant correlation with loss of C2-C7 lordosis after ACDF.