颈椎椎体切除术与两节段前椎间盘切除术治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病

M. Abdelfatah, Abdelrahman El Gayar, Aly Ibrahim, Sameh Hefny
{"title":"颈椎椎体切除术与两节段前椎间盘切除术治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病","authors":"M. Abdelfatah, Abdelrahman El Gayar, Aly Ibrahim, Sameh Hefny","doi":"10.21608/asmj.2023.307119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Background : The recognized surgical procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) include anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The best surgical technique for double-level CSM is still up for debate, though. Aim of the study: This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of the CSM patients who underwent two adjacent cervical discectomies versus a single-level corpectomy. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with double-level CSM at our university hospital. We included the data of the patients who underwent two adjacent ACDFs (group A) and the patients who underwent a single-level ACCF (group B) from January 2015 to December 2020. Thirty-five patients met our selection criteria. The functional impairment was assessed using the Nurick grades. Results: The study groups were similar in age, gender, and comorbidities. The mean operative time and the intraoperative blood loss were significantly lower in the ACDF group. There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcome of both groups. Also, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the one-year incidence of bony fusion, the improvement in the degree of canal stenosis, or Cobb’s angle. In addition, the postoperative complications were similar between groups. Conclusions: From our results, we cannot recommend one procedure over the other for treating double-level CSM. However, ACDF carries a significantly shorter operative time with less blood loss than the ACCF procedure.","PeriodicalId":7450,"journal":{"name":"Ain Shams Medical Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CERVICAL CORPECTOMY VERSUS TWO-LEVEL ANTERIOR DISCECTOMY FOR DOUBLE-LEVEL CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY\",\"authors\":\"M. Abdelfatah, Abdelrahman El Gayar, Aly Ibrahim, Sameh Hefny\",\"doi\":\"10.21608/asmj.2023.307119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": Background : The recognized surgical procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) include anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The best surgical technique for double-level CSM is still up for debate, though. Aim of the study: This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of the CSM patients who underwent two adjacent cervical discectomies versus a single-level corpectomy. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with double-level CSM at our university hospital. We included the data of the patients who underwent two adjacent ACDFs (group A) and the patients who underwent a single-level ACCF (group B) from January 2015 to December 2020. Thirty-five patients met our selection criteria. The functional impairment was assessed using the Nurick grades. Results: The study groups were similar in age, gender, and comorbidities. The mean operative time and the intraoperative blood loss were significantly lower in the ACDF group. There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcome of both groups. Also, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the one-year incidence of bony fusion, the improvement in the degree of canal stenosis, or Cobb’s angle. In addition, the postoperative complications were similar between groups. Conclusions: From our results, we cannot recommend one procedure over the other for treating double-level CSM. However, ACDF carries a significantly shorter operative time with less blood loss than the ACCF procedure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ain Shams Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ain Shams Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21608/asmj.2023.307119\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain Shams Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/asmj.2023.307119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)公认的外科手术包括前路颈椎椎间盘切除术融合术(ACDF)和前路颈椎椎体切除术融合术(ACCF)。然而,治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的最佳手术技术仍存在争议。研究目的:本研究旨在评估两次相邻颈椎椎间盘切除术与单节段椎体切除术的CSM患者的术后临床和影像学结果。患者和方法:在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们回顾了我校医院双级CSM患者的病历。我们纳入了2015年1月至2020年12月接受两次相邻acdf的患者(A组)和接受单级ACCF的患者(B组)的数据。35例患者符合我们的选择标准。使用Nurick评分对功能障碍进行评估。结果:研究组在年龄、性别和合并症方面相似。ACDF组的平均手术时间和术中出血量明显低于ACDF组。两组临床结果比较,差异无统计学意义。此外,两组在一年的骨融合发生率、椎管狭窄程度的改善或Cobb角方面无统计学差异。此外,两组术后并发症相似。结论:从我们的结果来看,我们不能推荐一种治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的方法。然而,与ACCF手术相比,ACDF手术时间短,出血量少。
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
CERVICAL CORPECTOMY VERSUS TWO-LEVEL ANTERIOR DISCECTOMY FOR DOUBLE-LEVEL CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY
: Background : The recognized surgical procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) include anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The best surgical technique for double-level CSM is still up for debate, though. Aim of the study: This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of the CSM patients who underwent two adjacent cervical discectomies versus a single-level corpectomy. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with double-level CSM at our university hospital. We included the data of the patients who underwent two adjacent ACDFs (group A) and the patients who underwent a single-level ACCF (group B) from January 2015 to December 2020. Thirty-five patients met our selection criteria. The functional impairment was assessed using the Nurick grades. Results: The study groups were similar in age, gender, and comorbidities. The mean operative time and the intraoperative blood loss were significantly lower in the ACDF group. There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcome of both groups. Also, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the one-year incidence of bony fusion, the improvement in the degree of canal stenosis, or Cobb’s angle. In addition, the postoperative complications were similar between groups. Conclusions: From our results, we cannot recommend one procedure over the other for treating double-level CSM. However, ACDF carries a significantly shorter operative time with less blood loss than the ACCF procedure.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Serum Erythroferrone, a Biomarker of Erythropoietic Activity in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients Fibromyalgia and Depression in Egyptian Medical Students: A Cross-sectional Study of Impact on Physical Functional Status Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) – A Review Prevalence and Factors Associated with Medication non-adherence among diabetic patients Attending at Menoufia University Hospitals Proportion and Determinants of Fibromyalgia in a Sample of Egyptians with Higher Education (Physicians and Non-physicians): A Comparative Cross-sectional Study.
×
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