Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion Research Articles

A comparative effectiveness study of patient-rated and radiographic outcome after 2 types of decompression with fusion for spondylotic myelopathy: anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy

Both anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF) are used to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy; however, there is currently no evidence for the superiority of one over the other in terms of patient-rated outcomes. This comparative effectiveness study compared the patient-rated and radiographic outcomes of 2-level ACDF versus 1-level ACCF. This single-center study was nested within the EuroSpine Spine Tango data acquisition system. Inclusion criteria were the following: consecutive patients presenting with signs of cervical spondylotic myelopathy who underwent 2-level ACDF or 1-level ACCF between 2004 and 2011. Before and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) and also rated global treatment outcome and satisfaction with care on 5-point Likert scales. Cervical lordosis, segmental height, and fusion rate were assessed radiographically before and immediately after surgery and at the last follow-up (20.4 ± 13.7 months, mean ± SD). In total, 118 consecutive patients (80 in the ACDF group and 38 in the ACCF group) were included. Age, sex, comorbidity, baseline symptoms, baseline radiographic data, operation duration, and complication rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Blood loss was significantly (p < 0.04) lower in the ACDF group. Postoperative mean segmental height was significantly (p = 0.0006) greater for ACDF (42.0 ± 4.2 mm, mean ± SD) than for ACCF (39.0 ± 4.0 mm), and global average lordosis improved to a significantly (p = 0.003) greater extent in ACDF (by 1.6° ± 4.1°) than in ACCF (by -1.0° ± 4.0°). Fusion rates for ACDF were 97.5% and for ACCF were 94.7% (p = 0.59). The 12-month patient-rated outcomes did not differ significantly between ACDF and ACCF: 82.4% and 68.6% had a good global outcome (operation helped/helped a lot) (p = 0.10), 86.5% and 82.9% were satisfied/very satisfied with care (p = 0.62), and the reduction in the multidimensional COMI was 2.8 ± 2.7 and 2.2 ± 3 points (p = 0.30), respectively. The postoperative increase in lordosis angle showed low but significant correlations with the improvement in arm pain (r = 0.25, p = 0.014), highest pain (r = 0.25, p = 0.013), and function (r = 0.24, p = 0.016). Both ACDF and ACCF are safe and effective in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, indicated by similarly good patient-rated outcomes 1 year after surgery. This precludes any conclusions regarding the superiority of one technique over the other, although it should be noted that ACDF resulted in less blood loss and greater improvements in cervical lordosis and segmental height than ACCF. Patients with improved lordosis angle had a better clinical outcome.

Initial Experience with BoneBac Press&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;TM&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: A Novel Autologous Bone Graft Harvesting and Collecting Device

Object: The objective of this study is to analyze the utility of a novel autologous bone graft harvesting and collecting device in spinal fusion surgeries. Methods: 35 patients underwent fusion procedures in the cervical or lumbar spine using the BoneBac PressTM. Procedures included anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), lumbar laminectomy and posterolateral arthrodesis, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The amount of bone graft collected from each level was determined as well as the need for additional bone graft extenders. Fusion rates were determined based on an independent radiographic evaluation performed 5 to 12 months postoperatively. Results: 54 total levels were operated upon, collecting a total of 176.0 cc of autograft. The average amount of bone collected was 3.26 cc/level. In the cervical and lumbar spine the average amount of bone collected per level was 2.30 cc and 6.77 cc respectively. The fusion rate was 94.3% at 10 months postoperatively. In most cases no additional bone graft extender was needed. Autologous bone collected had excellent handling characteristics and was easily packed into cages or placed posterolaterally. Conclusions: The use of autograft bone material collected using the BoneBac PressTM is costeffective, significantly reduces bone graft cost, and eliminates donor graft site morbidity while promoting successful fusion.

Is Anterior Cervical Fusion With a Porous Tantalum Implant a Cost-Effective Method to Treat Cervical Disc Disease With Radiculopathy?

Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) using a porous tantalum implant compared with autograft with plating, for single-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy. ACDF with autograft as an interbody spacer is a generally accepted method to treat degenerated cervical discs with radiculopathy. Concerns about donor site morbidity and the structural characteristics of autograft stimulated investigations of alternative materials. Techniques may differ in their operative risks, complications, outcomes, and resource use. A retrospective review of clinical outcomes and total cost of illness for 5 years postsurgery was performed for 61 consecutive patients enrolled for this study. Twenty-eight patients were treated with single-level ACDF using either a stand-alone, porous tantalum implant, without graft inside the implant, and 33 patients received autograft and plating. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 2 ACDF treatment methods was conducted. This article reports clinical assessments, quality adjusted life years gained, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis. Patients in both cohorts reported improved clinical outcomes, including neck disability index, visual analogue scale, Short-Form 36, Odom's clinical assessment, and patient satisfaction at 5 years postindex surgery. The mean cost of illness for the study period, including preoperative through 5 years postoperative assessments, was 6806 per patient treated with tantalum and 10,143 per patient receiving autograft and plate. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained were 9.41 and 7.14 for the tantalum and control cohorts, respectively. The cost per QALY for the tantalum group was 723 and 1420 for the control group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ACDF with a porous tantalum implant compared with ACDF with autograft and plate was -1473 per patient per year for the duration of this study. This cost-effectiveness analysis reports favorable results for ACDF procedures utilizing a tantalum implant. The data reported suggest that using porous tantalum as a stand-alone device is less costly and more effective than autograft and plate in ACDF procedures.

Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) compared to anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) for patient-important outcomes for single-level cervical spondylosis.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register for Randomized Controlled Trials, BIOSIS and LILACS), archives of spine meetings and bibliographies of relevant articles.Study selectionWe included RCTs of ACDF versus ACDA in adult patients with single-level cervical spondylosis reporting at least one of the following outcomes: functionality, neurological success, neck pain, arm pain, quality of life, surgery for adjacent level degeneration (ALD), reoperation and dysphonia/dysphagia. We used no language restrictions. We performed title and abstract screening and full text screening independently and in duplicate.Data synthesisWe used random-effects model to pool data using mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We used GRADE to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsOf 2804 citations, 9 articles reporting on 9 trials (1778 participants) were eligible. ACDA is associated with a clinically significant lower incidence of neurologic failure (RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37–0.75, p = 0.0004) and improvement in the Neck pain visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD = 6.56, 95% CI = 3.22–9.90, p = 0.0001; Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 2.5. ACDA is associated with a statistically but not clinically significant improvement in Arm pain VAS and SF-36 physical component summary. ACDA is associated with non-statistically significant higher improvement in the Neck Disability Index Score and lower incidence of ALD requiring surgery, reoperation, and dysphagia/dysphonia.ConclusionsThere is no strong evidence to support the routine use of ACDA over ACDF in single-level cervical spondylosis. Current trials lack long-term data required to assess safety as well as surgery for ALD. We suggest that ACDA in patients with single level cervical spondylosis is an option although its benefits and indication over ACDF remain in question.

Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness for the Herniated Cervical Disc

Systematic review. To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating cervical disc herniation. Cervical disc herniation is 1 of the 23 specific disorders included in the CANS (Complaints of the Arm, Neck, and/or Shoulder) model. Treatment options range from conservative to surgical, but evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is not yet well documented. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and CINAHL were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) up to February 2009. Two reviewers independently selected relevant studies, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted data. Pooling of the data was not possible; thus, a best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results. Of the 11 RCTs included, 1 compared conservative with surgical intervention, and 10 compared various surgical interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of conservative treatment (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cortisonics, and physical therapy) compared with percutaneous nucleoplasty. Moderate evidence was found for the effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) using a titanium cage compared with ACDF using polymethyl methacrylate, and for BRYAN cervical disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) prostheses compared with ACDF using allograft bone and plating. No outcomes regarding adjacent-level disease were reported. There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of ACD compared with ACDF. Only limited or no evidence was found for the other surgical interventions. No evidence for effectiveness of conservative treatment compared with surgery was found. Although there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of some surgical interventions, no unequivocal evidence for the superiority of 1 particular surgical treatment was found. Worldwide, most patients receive supplementary implants; however, cervical discectomy without graft may be preferred because of similar outcomes, lower costs, and possibly a lower risk of adjacent-level disease. More high-quality RCTs using validated outcome measures (including adjacent level disease) are needed.

Comparative Study Between Cervical Disc Prosthesis and Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion

Study design A non-randomized prospective studt To compare results of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc prosthesis in treatment of cervical disc disease. Background The use of cages in ACDF has been the treatment of cervical disc disease but fusion may lead to accelerated adjacent segment disease. The advantages of disc arthroplasty include maintenance of range of motion, avoidance of adjacent segment degeneration, reconstitution of disc height and spinal alignment, maintenance of mechanical characteristics, decreased surgical morbidity, avoidance of complications from instrumentation or postoperative immobilization, and allowing early return to function. Methods 20 patients with cervical disc disease were included. It was done with specific selection inclusion criteria: 10 patients had been operated upon by ACDF (group I) while another 10 patients had ACD with cervical disc prosthesis replacement (group II). All patients were assessed at discharge then at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months post-operatively by visual analogue scale. Motor power and Sphincteric troubles were also recorded. Results Preoperative evaluation for group I showed that nine had neck pain and all suffered from brachialgia. All patients were ambulant except for one with spasticity. One patient had precipitancy of micturition. In group II, six complained of neck pain and all had brachialgia. All patients were ambulant except for one case of spasticity and one had precipitancy of micturition. Post-operative results are summarized in tables 2 and 3. Conclusions: The longterm function of a cervical prosthesis is essential to its clinical utility as similar improvement in clinical parameters were observed in both groups, but with arthroplasty there was radiographic evidence of motion preservation. Cervical prosthesis demonstrates the potential to play a prominent role in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease in well-selected cases.

Techniques for anterior cervical decompression for radiculopathy

The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify the best techniques for anterior cervical nerve root decompression. The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to techniques for the surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer-review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Both anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) are equivalent treatment strategies for 1-level disease with regard to functional outcome (Class II). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion may achieve a more rapid reduction of neck and arm pain compared to ACD with a reduced risk of kyphosis, although functional outcomes may be similar. Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion is not a lasting means of increasing foraminal or disc height compared to ACD. Anterior cervical plating (ACDF with instrumentation) improves arm pain (but not other clinical parameters) better than ACDF in the treatment of 2-level disease (Class II). With respect to 1-level disease, plating may reduce the risk of pseudarthrosis and graft problems (Class III) but does not necessarily improve clinical outcome alone (Class II). Cervical arthroplasty is recommended as an alternative to ACDF in selected patients for control of neck and arm pain (Class II). Anterior cervical discectomy, ACDF, and arthroplasty are effective techniques for addressing surgical cervical radiculopathy.

Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to compare the efficacy of different surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to anterior and posterior cervical spine surgery and CSM. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. A variety of techniques have improved functional outcome after surgical treatment for CSM, including anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF), laminoplasty, laminectomy, and laminectomy with fusion (Class III). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and ACCF appear to yield similar results in multilevel spine decompression for lesions at the disc level. The use of anterior plating allows for equivalent fusion rates between these techniques (Class III). If anterior fixation is not used, ACCF may provide a higher fusion rate than multilevel ACDF but also a higher graft failure rate than multilevel ACDF (Class III). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion, ACCF, laminectomy, laminoplasty, and laminectomy with arthrodesis all provide near-term functional improvement for CSM. However, laminectomy is associated with late deterioration compared with the other types of anterior and posterior surgeries (Class III). Multiple approaches exist with similar near-term improvements; however, laminectomy appears to have a late deterioration rate that may need to be considered when appropriate.

Indications for anterior cervical decompression for the treatment of cervical degenerative radiculopathy

The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify the indications and utility of anterior cervical nerve root decompression. The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. Abstracts were reviewed after which studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Anterior nerve root decompression via anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) with or without fusion for radiculopathy is associated with rapid relief (3-4 months) of arm/neck pain, weakness, and/or sensory loss compared with physical therapy (PT) or cervical collar immobilization. Anterior cervical discectomy and ACD with fusion (ACDF) are associated with longer term (12 months) improvement in certain motor functions compared to PT. Other rapid gains observed after anterior decompression (diminished pain, improved sensation, and improved strength in certain muscle groups) are also maintained over the course of 12 months. However, comparable clinical improvements with PT or cervical immobilization therapy are also present in these clinical modalities (Class I). Conflicting evidence exists as to the efficacy of anterior cervical foraminotomy with reported success rates of 52-99% but recurrent symptoms as high as 30% (Class III). Anterior cervical discectomy, ACDF, and anterior cervical foraminotomy may improve cervical radicular symptoms. With regard to ACD and ACDF compared to PT or cervical immobilization, more rapid relief (within 3-4 months) may be seen with ACD or ACDF with maintenance of gains over the course of 12 months (Class I). Anterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with improvement in clinical function but the quality of data are weaker (Class III), and there is a wide range of efficacy (52-99%).

Bilateral Vocal Cord Injury Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy: Could a Better Preoperative Exam Have Prevented It?

We present a rare case of bilateral vocal cord injury (BVCI) following anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACD/F) in a 47 year old man. The patient experienced post-extubation stridor and whispering voice in the recovery room. Clinical assessment led to the diagnosis of BVCI. The patient was treated by tracheostomy and made a full recovery. What is unique about this case is that the patient had no reason for a preexisting unilateral vocal cord injury (UVCI) prior to this surgery. There have been only two similar cases in the English literature in which the patients had a preexisting unilateral vocal cord paralysis (UVCI). We recommend a more detailed preoperative airway exam to include a voice exam with specific voice fatigue questioning on all patients coming for ACD/F. Such detailed assessment may uncover hidden UVCI and allow a safer perioperative period.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with implantable titanium cage: initial impressions, patient outcomes and comparison to fusion with allograft

Background context The use of metal cage prosthetic devices in anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) has increased rapidly. One of these devices is the titanium Rabea cage (Depuy Acromed, Raynham, MA). There are no peer-reviewed objective reports on the use of these cages in cervical discectomy. Purpose The authors present preliminary outcomes data on the Rabea cage. This study is intended to provide adjunct data for surgeons who are using or are considering the use of these devices. Study design/setting Patients in a private practice were studied prospectively as part of a long-term assessment of outcomes using several surgical procedures. Data were collated and analyzed by an independent researcher. Patient sample Rabea cages were used in consecutive candidates (n = 37) for ACDF. The results using Rabea cages were compared with two prospectively studied control groups, one historical (n = 66) and one concurrent (n = 28), both groups using ACDF with bone allograft and no instrumentation. Outcome measures Success at 6 months after surgery was determined using six major patient-reported outcome measures, including visual analog scales (VAS) for arm and neck pain, the Oswestry pain and disability scale, four-part (excellent-through-poor) scales for measurement of return to activities of daily living or to work and satisfaction with the results of surgery. Perioperative complications, number of vertebral levels fused, and worker's compensation and smoking status were also compared among the study groups. Fusion and subsidence were evaluated for the Rabea cage group. Methods Criteria for inclusion consisted of consecutive patients who presented with unremitting radicular arm pain, with or without neck pain, and/or a neurological deficit that correlated with appropriate level and side neural compression on magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Questionnaire follow-up was at 6 months after surgery with 100% compliance. Results A total of 50 cages were implanted in the 37 patients. At 6-month follow-up, 78% of patients reported successful arm pain relief (VAS scores below 5). Patient satisfaction was successful in 78% of the cases. Other success rates included neck pain relief in 73% and Oswestry pain and disability scale in 70%. There was a median improvement in the Oswestry scores of 28 points (61% change). Worker's compensation patients fared dramatically worse than did the noncompensation patients in all outcome measurements. Combining all three study groups resulted in significantly worse outcomes for multilevel than for single-level procedures and for smokers compared with nonsmokers, but low case numbers precluded conclusive analysis for the Rabea group alone. In the Rabea group there were two complications, neither cage related, whereas none were reported for the ACDF controls. Rabea group fusion rates were 84% at 3 months and 95% at 6 months, but the clinical relevance of this radiological evidence when metal prostheses are used is questionable. The outcomes results were clinically and statistically indistinguishable from those of our control groups and were similar to published studies using other titanium cages. Conclusions This is the first prospective, independently conducted report on Rabea cages. Results of the short-term (6 months) follow-up did not differ from outcomes results in our patients who have undergone ACDF with bone allograft. Although this is a preliminary assessment, the Rabea cage may represent an alternative to bone dowels and hip graft. As is the case for other allografts, artificial or bone, the main advantage is elimination of donor site complications, and the disadvantages include difficulty in radiographic assessment of fusion and potential for cage subsidence.