颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合与颈椎椎体切除术联合髂骨植骨融合治疗多节段退行性脊髓病:单中心经验。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-06 DOI:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001754
Claudio A Rivas Palacios, Mario M Barbosa, María A Escobar, Ezequiel Garcia-Ballestas, Camilo García, Salvador M Mattar, Salvador Mattar
{"title":"颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合与颈椎椎体切除术联合髂骨植骨融合治疗多节段退行性脊髓病:单中心经验。","authors":"Claudio A Rivas Palacios, Mario M Barbosa, María A Escobar, Ezequiel Garcia-Ballestas, Camilo García, Salvador M Mattar, Salvador Mattar","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We evaluated and compared the outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (CDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy with iliac crest graft and fusion (CCF) in patients with ≥3 level degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior and posterior approaches are widely employed in DCM when compressive elements predominate in the anterior or posterior spinal cord, respectively. Indications for each approach remain controversial in some contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the STROBE statement, a retrospective enrollment from records of patients who underwent anterior CDF and/or CCF between June 2015 and June 2022. Linear mixed models were applied to establish the effects of the type of surgery according to the follow-up time (mo).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 73 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 21 (28.8%) were included in the CDF group and 52 (71.2%) in the CCF group. Twenty surgeries were performed at 3 cervical levels and 53 at 4 levels. There was an improvement in the NDI and VAS score, with an Odom mean of 1.63±0.67 at 12 months of follow-up, with no differences between CDF and CCF. In the CDF group, it was reported a greater C2-7 Cobb angle at the third month of follow-up. In the CCF group, the C2-7 Cobb angle had a negative correlation with the NDI and VAS scales, and a positive correlation with the mJOA scale. Intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in CDF. There were no differences between the 2 groups in medical complications and other radiologic findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgery for multilevel DCM using an anterior approach with CDF or CCF showed good clinical outcomes without significant differences between the 2 groups, and equivalent results in medical complications and radiologic parameters. The CDF group had better perioperative results and shorter postoperative hospitalization time.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Corpectomy With Iliac Crest Graft and Fusion in Multilevel Degenerative Myelopathy: A Single Center Experience.\",\"authors\":\"Claudio A Rivas Palacios, Mario M Barbosa, María A Escobar, Ezequiel Garcia-Ballestas, Camilo García, Salvador M Mattar, Salvador Mattar\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001754\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We evaluated and compared the outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (CDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy with iliac crest graft and fusion (CCF) in patients with ≥3 level degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior and posterior approaches are widely employed in DCM when compressive elements predominate in the anterior or posterior spinal cord, respectively. Indications for each approach remain controversial in some contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the STROBE statement, a retrospective enrollment from records of patients who underwent anterior CDF and/or CCF between June 2015 and June 2022. Linear mixed models were applied to establish the effects of the type of surgery according to the follow-up time (mo).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 73 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 21 (28.8%) were included in the CDF group and 52 (71.2%) in the CCF group. Twenty surgeries were performed at 3 cervical levels and 53 at 4 levels. There was an improvement in the NDI and VAS score, with an Odom mean of 1.63±0.67 at 12 months of follow-up, with no differences between CDF and CCF. In the CDF group, it was reported a greater C2-7 Cobb angle at the third month of follow-up. In the CCF group, the C2-7 Cobb angle had a negative correlation with the NDI and VAS scales, and a positive correlation with the mJOA scale. Intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in CDF. There were no differences between the 2 groups in medical complications and other radiologic findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgery for multilevel DCM using an anterior approach with CDF or CCF showed good clinical outcomes without significant differences between the 2 groups, and equivalent results in medical complications and radiologic parameters. The CDF group had better perioperative results and shorter postoperative hospitalization time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-06\",\"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.0000000000001754\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001754","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:队列回顾性研究。目的:评价并比较≥3级退行性颈椎病(DCM)患者行前路颈椎椎间盘切除术融合术(CDF)和前路颈椎椎体切除术髂嵴植骨融合术(CCF)的疗效。背景:当脊髓前部或后部压迫因素占主导地位时,前路和后路分别被广泛应用于DCM。在某些情况下,每种方法的适应症仍有争议。方法:根据STROBE声明,从2015年6月至2022年6月期间接受前路CDF和/或CCF的患者记录中回顾性纳入。采用线性混合模型,根据随访时间(mo)建立手术类型的影响。结果:本研究共有73例患者符合纳入标准,其中CDF组21例(28.8%),CCF组52例(71.2%)。在3节段进行手术20例,在4节段进行手术53例。NDI和VAS评分均有改善,随访12个月时奥多姆平均值为1.63±0.67,CDF和CCF之间无差异。在CDF组中,随访第3个月时报告C2-7 Cobb角增大。CCF组C2-7 Cobb角与NDI、VAS量表呈负相关,与mJOA量表呈正相关。CDF组术中估计失血量(EBL)、手术时间和术后住院时间较短。两组在医学并发症和其他影像学表现上无差异。结论:采用CDF或CCF前路手术治疗多节段DCM的临床效果良好,两组间无显著性差异,在医学并发症和影像学参数方面效果相当。CDF组围手术期效果较好,术后住院时间较短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Corpectomy With Iliac Crest Graft and Fusion in Multilevel Degenerative Myelopathy: A Single Center Experience.

Study design: Cohort retrospective study.

Objective: We evaluated and compared the outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (CDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy with iliac crest graft and fusion (CCF) in patients with ≥3 level degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).

Background: Anterior and posterior approaches are widely employed in DCM when compressive elements predominate in the anterior or posterior spinal cord, respectively. Indications for each approach remain controversial in some contexts.

Methods: Following the STROBE statement, a retrospective enrollment from records of patients who underwent anterior CDF and/or CCF between June 2015 and June 2022. Linear mixed models were applied to establish the effects of the type of surgery according to the follow-up time (mo).

Results: In this study, 73 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 21 (28.8%) were included in the CDF group and 52 (71.2%) in the CCF group. Twenty surgeries were performed at 3 cervical levels and 53 at 4 levels. There was an improvement in the NDI and VAS score, with an Odom mean of 1.63±0.67 at 12 months of follow-up, with no differences between CDF and CCF. In the CDF group, it was reported a greater C2-7 Cobb angle at the third month of follow-up. In the CCF group, the C2-7 Cobb angle had a negative correlation with the NDI and VAS scales, and a positive correlation with the mJOA scale. Intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in CDF. There were no differences between the 2 groups in medical complications and other radiologic findings.

Conclusion: Surgery for multilevel DCM using an anterior approach with CDF or CCF showed good clinical outcomes without significant differences between the 2 groups, and equivalent results in medical complications and radiologic parameters. The CDF group had better perioperative results and shorter postoperative hospitalization time.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
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.
期刊最新文献
Ligamentous Augmentation to Prevent Proximal Junctional Kyphosis and Failure: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study. Characterization of Lumbar Lordosis: Influence of Age, Sex, Vertebral Body Wedging, and L4-S1. Motion Capture-based 3-Dimensional Measurement of Range of Motion in Patients Undergoing Cervical Laminoplasty. Stopping at C2 Versus C3/4 in Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: A 5-Year Follow-up Study. Preoperative Cervical Epidural Steroid Injections: Utilization and Postoperative Complications in ACDF, PCDF, and Decompression.
×
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