Akiro H Duey, Christopher Gonzalez, Timothy Hoang, Eric A Geng, Pierce J Ferriter, Ashley M Rosenberg, Bashar Zaidat, Ivan J Zapolsky, Jun S Kim, Samuel K Cho
{"title":"The Effect of Intraoperative Overdistraction on Subsidence Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.","authors":"Akiro H Duey, Christopher Gonzalez, Timothy Hoang, Eric A Geng, Pierce J Ferriter, Ashley M Rosenberg, Bashar Zaidat, Ivan J Zapolsky, Jun S Kim, Samuel K Cho","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of overdistraction on interbody cage subsidence.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Vertebral overdistraction due to the use of large intervertebral cage sizes may increase the risk of postoperative subsidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between 2016 and 2021 were included. All measurements were performed using lateral cervical radiographs at 3 time points - preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final follow-up >6 months postoperatively. Anterior and posterior distraction were calculated by subtracting the preoperative disc height from the immediate postoperative disc height. Cage subsidence was calculated by subtracting the final follow-up postoperative disc height from the immediate postoperative disc height. Associations between anterior and posterior subsidence and distraction were determined using multivariable linear regression models. The analyses controlled for cage type, cervical level, sex, age, smoking status, and osteopenia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-eight patients and 125 fused levels were included in the study. Of the 68 fusions, 22 were single-level fusions, 35 were 2-level, and 11 were 3-level. The median final follow-up interval was 368 days (range: 181-1257 d). Anterior disc space subsidence was positively associated with anterior distraction (beta = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.38; P = 0.004), and posterior disc space subsidence was positively associated with posterior distraction (beta = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.45; P < 0.001). No significant associations between anterior distraction and posterior subsidence (beta = 0.07; 95% CI: -0.06, 0.20; P = 0.270) or posterior distraction and anterior subsidence (beta = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.14, 0.27; P = 0.541) were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that overdistraction of the disc space was associated with increased postoperative subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Surgeons should consider choosing a smaller cage size to avoid overdistraction and minimize postoperative subsidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"E488-E493"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001643","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective cohort.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of overdistraction on interbody cage subsidence.
Background: Vertebral overdistraction due to the use of large intervertebral cage sizes may increase the risk of postoperative subsidence.
Methods: Patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between 2016 and 2021 were included. All measurements were performed using lateral cervical radiographs at 3 time points - preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final follow-up >6 months postoperatively. Anterior and posterior distraction were calculated by subtracting the preoperative disc height from the immediate postoperative disc height. Cage subsidence was calculated by subtracting the final follow-up postoperative disc height from the immediate postoperative disc height. Associations between anterior and posterior subsidence and distraction were determined using multivariable linear regression models. The analyses controlled for cage type, cervical level, sex, age, smoking status, and osteopenia.
Results: Sixty-eight patients and 125 fused levels were included in the study. Of the 68 fusions, 22 were single-level fusions, 35 were 2-level, and 11 were 3-level. The median final follow-up interval was 368 days (range: 181-1257 d). Anterior disc space subsidence was positively associated with anterior distraction (beta = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.38; P = 0.004), and posterior disc space subsidence was positively associated with posterior distraction (beta = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.45; P < 0.001). No significant associations between anterior distraction and posterior subsidence (beta = 0.07; 95% CI: -0.06, 0.20; P = 0.270) or posterior distraction and anterior subsidence (beta = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.14, 0.27; P = 0.541) were observed.
Conclusions: We found that overdistraction of the disc space was associated with increased postoperative subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Surgeons should consider choosing a smaller cage size to avoid overdistraction and minimize postoperative subsidence.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.