• Patrick W Hitchon, Royce W Woodroffe, Jennifer A Noeller, Logan Helland, Nataliya Hramakova, and Kirill V Nourski.
• Department of Neurosurgery, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA.
• Spine. 2019 May 1; 44 (9): 615-623.

Study DesignA retrospective cohort study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify advantages and disadvantages of the anterior and posterior approaches in the treatment of cervical stenosis and myelopathy.Summary Of Background DataBoth anterior and posterior surgical approaches for cervical stenosis and myelopathy have been shown to result in improvement in health-related outcomes. Despite the evidence, controversy remains regarding the best approach to achieve decompression and correct deformity.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with cervical stenosis and myelopathy who had undergone anterior cervical fusion and instrumentation (n = 38) or posterior cervical laminectomy and instrumentation (n = 51) with at least 6 months of follow-up. Plain radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography scans, as well as health-related outcomes, including Visual Analog Scale for neck pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association score for myelopathy, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form-36 Health Survey, were collated before surgery and at follow-up (median 12.0 and 12.1 months for anterior and posterior group, respectively).ResultsBoth anterior and posterior approaches were associated with significant improvements in all studied quality of life parameters with the exception of general health in the anterior group and energy and fatigue in the posterior group. In the anterior group, follow-up assessment revealed a significant increase in C2-7 lordosis. Both approaches were accompanied by significant increases in C2-7 sagittal balance [sagittal vertical axis (SVA)]. There were two complications in the anterior group and nine complications in the posterior group; the incidence of complications between the two groups was not significantly different.ConclusionWhen the benefits of one approach over the other are not self-evident, the anterior approach is recommended, as it was associated with a shorter hospital stay and more successful restoration of cervical lordosis than posterior surgery.Level Of Evidence3.

21 keywords...

hide…