Effectiveness of 3 Surgical Decompression Strategies for Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy in 3 Spinal Centers in China A Retrospective Study

ArticleinSpine 37(17):1463-9 · August 2012with10 Reads
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824ff9bc · Source: PubMed
Retrospective multicenter study. To compare clinical outcomes and surgical-related adverse events in patients with multilevel cervical myelopathy (MCM) undergoing simple anterior, simple posterior, or 1-stage posterior-anterior surgical decompression strategies. Simple anterior, simple posterior, and 1-stage posterior-anterior surgical decompression strategies have been advocated for MCM treatment in both Western and Chinese populations. However, there is limited evidence on whether 1-stage posterior-anterior strategy may offer equal or more advantages than the other 2 strategies for patients with MCM. A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for 255 patients with MCM who had undergone surgical decompression in 3 Chinese spinal centers from 1999 to 2010. Neurological status, perioperative variables, and surgical complications were assessed. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate factors associated with the outcomes of each strategy. Analyses were conducted on a total of 229 patients with MCM undergoing surgical decompression via 1-stage posterior-anterior (68 patients), simple anterior (102 patients), and simple posterior approaches (59 patients). One-stage posterior-anterior approach had the highest Japanese Orthopaedic Association recovery rate after adjusted for age and sex (adjusted mean ± SD: 50.0 ± 3.2, P < 0.001) and additionally adjusted for smoking, duration from onset of symptoms to surgery, comorbidities, preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Ishihara's curvature index and Pavlov ratio, operative blood loss, operating time, anterior operated disc levels, and posterior operated levels (adjusted mean ± SD: 51.6 ± 11.6, P < 0.01). Anterior approach had the largest difference between the pre- and postoperative Ishihara's curvature indexes after adjusted for age and sex (adjusted mean ± SD: 5.3 ± 1.0, P < 0.01) and after multivariable adjustment (adjusted mean ± SD: 6.5 ± 2.8, P = 0.003). One-stage posterior-anterior strategy can be a reliable and effective treatment strategy for MCM in a subgroup of patients with anterior and posterior compression on spinal cord simultaneously.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Introduction Cervical laminectomy is a reliable tool for posterior decompression in various cervical spine pathologies. Although there is increasing evidence of superior clinical, neurological and radiological outcomes when using anterior cervical decompression, laminectomy can be a valuable tool when combined with instrumented lateral mass fusion for carefully selected indications. Methods Literature review. Results This review article will provide decision-making guidance, technical advices and pitfalls. The technical advice for laminectomy and instrumented lateral mass fusion is illustrated. The authors review the literature on outcomes and complications and suggest indications for the safe and successful application of cervical laminectomy and lateral mass fusion.
    Article · May 2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: In this retrospective study we outline the relationship between a chosen surgical approach as it relates to the localization of spinal cord lesion assessed by the use of evoked potentials and the effect of this approach on the postoperative state of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Methodology: The study, from 2006 to 2010, comprised 65 patients with clinical signs of cervical myelopathy. These patients had been indicated for surgery, which subsequently was performed by using either the anterior - A or posterior - P approach. The patients were assessed using Nurick and mJOA scores before surgery, then at 12, 24 months after surgery. In addition, they were preoperatively examined with a battery of evoked potentials (EP) - somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) and motor evoked potential (MEP) tests. Based on EP, principal spinal cord disability was determined: A - anterior (maximum changes in MEP), P - posterior (maximum change in SEP). The entire group was, on the basis of EP partitioning and the surgical approach used, divided into four groups: Aa, Ap, Pa, Pp. The results of individual examinations were compared within groups and in between groups. Results: Objective postoperative improvement mJOA score was found in all four groups. Statistically significant improvement was, however, detected only in the groups of anterior approaches regardless of the primacy of SEP or MEP lesion (Aa: p = 0.011, Ap: p = 0.005). Overall mJOA improvement was revealed in 65% patients in this study. Conclusion: Objectively significant postoperative improvements were achieved with anterior approaches, regardless of the fact whether the dominant spinal cord pathology was located ventrally or dorsally. As a result of this study, there seems to be no benefit to choosing a surgical approach based on the localization of dominant spinal cord pathology assesses by EP.
    Article · Jan 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background Spine surgery is widely accepted as an effective management for patients with lumbar disc herniation; however, the factors influencing intraoperative procedure and prognosis are not fully understood. The present study was aimed to identify the factors influencing intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and recovery in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 183 consecutive patients with lumbar disc herniation who underwent spine surgery. The clinical characteristics, operation procedure, and outcome were documented and the correlations were analyzed. Results There were significant differences between one-level and two-level operations in the bleeding volumes of male (P = 0.005) and female (P = 0.002) patients, and in final drainage of male (P = 0.043) and female (P = 0.003) patients. The blood loss was correlated with the operation duration. There were differences in intraoperative bleeding and final drainage between groups with one-level and two-level operations. Additionally, there were differences in intraoperative autologous blood transfusion among various groups. There were significant differences in intraoperative bleeding between autologous blood transfusion and non-transfusion groups. Conclusions The key factors affecting the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume include operation methods, operation duration, blood-transfusion modes, and usage of anticoagulants. These results should be taken into consideration in the attempt to optimize operation procedure and improve post-operative recovery.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2015
Show more