Comparison of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion and Posterior Laminoplasty for Four-Segment Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-30 DOI:10.1055/a-2005-0552
Liang Shi, Tao Ding, Fang Wang, Chengcong Wu
{"title":"Comparison of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion and Posterior Laminoplasty for Four-Segment Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.","authors":"Liang Shi, Tao Ding, Fang Wang, Chengcong Wu","doi":"10.1055/a-2005-0552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"331-339"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2005-0552","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  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.

Methods:  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.

Results:  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.

Conclusions:  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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
颈椎前路减压融合术与后路椎板成形术治疗四节段颈椎病的比较:临床和影像学结果
背景:尽管前路或后路手术治疗颈椎病(CSM)已被广泛研究,但对于四节段 CSM,选择前路还是后路仍研究甚少且存在争议。本研究比较了后路椎板成形术(LAMP)和颈椎前路减压融合术(ACDF)治疗四节段 CSM 的临床和影像学结果,以进一步探讨 ACDF 和 LAMP 治疗四节段 CSM 的优缺点:回顾性分析2016年1月至2019年6月期间接受ACDF或LAMP治疗的四节段CSM患者。我们比较了术前和术后颈椎日本矫形协会(JOA)评分、颈部残疾指数(NDI)、颈部疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、矢状纵轴、颈椎前凸(CL)和活动范围:ACDF 组和 LAMP 组分别有 47 名和 79 名患者。与 LAMP 组相比,ACDF 组患者的手术时间明显更长,估计失血量和住院时间也更短。两组患者术前的JOA、NDI或颈部疼痛VAS评分无明显差异,但在最终随访时,ACDF组的NDI和颈部疼痛VAS评分明显低于LAMP组。ACDF 组术前 C2-C7 Cobb 角明显低于 LAMP 组,但术后两组间无明显差异。ACDF 组 C2-C7 Cobb 角的改善程度(∆C2-C7 Cobb 角)明显高于 LAMP 组。这表明 ACDF 比 LAMP 更能改善 CL。线性回归分析显示,∆C2-C7 Cobb角与最终随访的颈部疼痛VAS评分和NDI呈负相关。这表明CL改善较好的患者预后可能更好:结论:尽管 ACDF 和 LAMP 手术对四节段 CSM 均有效,但 ACDF 能更好地改善 CL 和颈部疼痛。对于CL较差的患者,如果两种方法都可行,我们建议采用ACDF。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery (JNLS A) is a major publication from the world''s leading publisher in neurosurgery. JNLS A currently serves as the official organ of several national neurosurgery societies. JNLS A is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles, and technical notes covering all aspects of neurological surgery. The focus of JNLS A includes microsurgery as well as the latest minimally invasive techniques, such as stereotactic-guided surgery, endoscopy, and endovascular procedures. JNLS A covers purely neurosurgical topics.
期刊最新文献
Vagal Nerve Stimulation in the Pediatric Population and Correlation between Family and Treatment Team Perspectives: Single-Center Experience. Combined one-step hybrid treatment for a paediatric giant internal carotid artery aneurysm: a case report. A New Concept for Cervical Expansion Screws Using Shape Memory Alloy: A Feasibility Study. Artificial Intelligence Prediction Model of Occurrence of Cerebral Vasospasms Based on Machine Learning. Paresis of the Oculomotor Nerve due to Neurovascular Conflict with Superior Cerebellar Artery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1