• Spine · May 2017

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of 3 reconstructive techniques in the surgical management of patients with 4-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

    • Zhonghai Li, Huadong Wang, Jiaguang Tang, Dongfeng Ren, Li Li, Shuxun Hou, Hailong Zhang, and Tiesheng Hou.
    • Department of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, The People's Republic of China.
    • Spine. 2017 May 15; 42 (10): E575E583E575-E583.

    Study DesignRetrospective clinical series.ObjectiveTo compare perioperative parameters, clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and complication rates of three reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).Summary Of Background DataAt present, the decision to treat multilevel CSM, especially four-level CSM, remains controversial. No one compares multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF), segmental anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (sACCF) to multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cage alone (mACDF-CA) in four-level constructs.MethodsBetween July 2006 and February 2014, 97 consecutive patients with four-level CSM were enrolled in this study and divided into sACCF (n = 39) group, mACDF (n = 31) group, and mACDF-CA (n = 27) group. The study compared perioperative parameters, complication rates, clinical and radiologic parameters of three reconstructive techniques after the anterior decompression of four-level CSM.ResultsThe mACDF-CA group had the least bleeding and cost of index surgery compared with the sACCF group having the most bleeding and cost. Although significant pain relief and functional activity improvement have been achieved in the three groups at the final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the Japanese Orthopedic Association, SF-36 and NDI scores among the three groups (P >0.05). The mACDF group maintained the best cervical lordosis at the final follow-up, compared with the sACCF group maintained the worst cervical lordosis. Solid fusion was achieved in 87.1% of subjects in sACCF group, 90.3% in mACDF, and in 88.9% in mACDF-CA. The mACDF-CA group had a higher rate of subsidence and lower rate of dysphagia than other two groups.ConclusionmACDF-CA can be considered an effective and safe alternative procedure in the treatment of the four-level CSM.Level Of Evidence4.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…