Author:
Peloza John,Malone Hani,Jacobian Erel,Kolsky Daniel E.,Harel Ran,Guyer Richard D.,Millgram Michael A.,Ashkenazi Ely
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an effective technique to address multi-level degenerative cervical myelopathy. However, as the number of surgical levels increases, the outcomes worsen with respect to complication rates, range of motion and length of surgery. This study aimed to determine the clinical outcome of ACCF procedures performed using a new distally curved and shielded drilling device.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted on 43 ACCF procedures in which the device was used for osteophyte removal. Patient files were reviewed to assess the early clinical results and complications following ACCF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using patient neck and arm pain scores and SF-36 questionnaires. Hospitalization characteristics were compared with historical controls.
Results
All procedures were uneventful and without major complications or neurological deterioration. Single-level ACCF procedures required an average of 71 min and followed by an average hospitalization of 3.3 days. Osteophyte removal, verified by intraoperative imaging, was satisfactory. Average neck pain score was improved by 0.9 points (p = 0.24). Average arm pain score was improved by 1.8 points (p = 0.06). SF-36 scores were improved in all domains.
Conclusions
The new curved device enabled safe and efficient removal of osteophytes sparing adjacent vertebral removal in ACCF procedures, thus improving the clinical outcome.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference27 articles.
1. Ikenaga M, Shikata J, Tanaka C. Long-term results over 10 years of anterior corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Spine. 2006;31:1568–74.
2. Sarkar S, Nair BR, Rajshekhar V. Complications following central corpectomy in 468 consecutive patients with degenerative cervical spine disease. Neurosur Focus Am Assoc Neurol Surg. 2016;40:E10.
3. Lin Q, Zhou X, Wang X, Cao P, Tsai N, Yuan W. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and corpectomy in patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:474–81.
4. Rao RD, Gourab K, David KS. Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. JBJS. 2006;88:1619–40.
5. Yalamanchili PK, Vives MJ, Chaudhary SB. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: factors in choosing the surgical approach. Adv Orthop. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/783762.