scholarly journals Cervical Spine Deformity—Part 3: Posterior Techniques, Clinical Outcome, and Complications

Neurosurgery ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-253
Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee A Tan ◽  
K Daniel Riew ◽  
Vincent C Traynelis

Abstract The goals of cervical deformity surgery include deformity correction, restoration of horizontal gaze, decompression of neural elements, spinal stabilization with a biomechanically sound construct, and meticulous arthrodesis technique to prevent pseudoarthrosis and minimizing surgical complications. Many different surgical options exist, but selecting the correct approach that ensures the optimal clinical outcome can be challenging and often controversial. In this last part of the cervical deformity review series, various posterior deformity correction techniques are discussed in detail, along with an overview of surgical outcome and postoperative complications.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee A. Tan ◽  
K. Daniel Riew ◽  
Vincent C. Traynelis

Abstract Cervical spine deformities can have a significant negative impact on the quality of life by causing pain, myelopathy, radiculopathy, sensorimotor deficits, as well as inability to maintain horizontal gaze in severe cases. Many different surgical options exist for operative management of cervical spine deformities. However, selecting the correct approach that ensures the optimal clinical outcome can be challenging and is often controversial. We aim to provide an overview of cervical spine deformity in a 3-part series covering topics including the biomechanics, radiographic parameters, classification, treatment algorithms, surgical techniques, clinical outcome, and complication avoidance with a review of pertinent literature.


2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822098827
Author(s):  
Giorgio Lofrese ◽  
Alba Scerrati ◽  
Massimo Balsano ◽  
Roberto Bassani ◽  
Michele Cappuccio ◽  
...  

Study Design: Retrospective multicenter. Objectives: diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) involving the cervical spine is a rare condition determining disabling aero-digestive symptoms. We analyzed impact of preoperative settings and intraoperative techniques on outcome of patients undergoing surgery for DISH. Methods: Patients with DISH needing for anterior cervical osteophytectomy were collected. Swallow studies and endoscopy supported imaging in targeting bone decompression. Patients characteristics, clinico-radiological presentation, outcome and surgical strategies were recorded. Impact on clinical outcome of duration and time to surgery and different surgical techniques was evaluated through ANOVA. Results: 24 patients underwent surgery. No correlation was noted between specific spinal levels affected by DISH and severity of pre-operative dysphagia. A trend toward a full clinical improvement was noted preferring the chisel ( P = 0.12) to the burr ( P = 0.65), and whenever C2-C3 was decompressed, whether hyperostosis included that level ( P = 0.15). Use of curved chisel reduced the surgical times ( P = 0.02) and, together with the nasogastric tube, the risk of complications, while bone removal involving 3 levels or more ( P = 0.04) and shorter waiting times for surgery ( P < 0.001) positively influenced a complete swallowing recovery. Early decompressions were preferred, resulting in 66.6% of patients reporting disappearance of symptoms within 7 days. One and two recurrences respectively at clinical and radiological follow-up were registered 18-30 months after surgery. Conclusion: The “age of DISH” counts more than patients’ age with timeliness of decompression being crucial in determining clinical outcome even with a preoperative mild dysphagia. Targeted bone resections could be reasonable in elderly patients, while in younger ones more extended decompressions should be preferred.


Author(s):  
Jae Taek Hong ◽  
Heiko Koller ◽  
Kuniyoshi Abumi ◽  
Wen Yuan ◽  
Asdrubal Falavigna ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Ames ◽  
Justin S. Smith ◽  
Justin K. Scheer ◽  
Christopher I. Shaffrey ◽  
Virginie Lafage ◽  
...  

Object Cervical spine osteotomies are powerful techniques to correct rigid cervical spine deformity. Many variations exist, however, and there is no current standardized system with which to describe and classify cervical osteotomies. This complicates the ability to compare outcomes across procedures and studies. The authors' objective was to establish a universal nomenclature for cervical spine osteotomies to provide a common language among spine surgeons. Methods A proposed nomenclature with 7 anatomical grades of increasing extent of bone/soft tissue resection and destabilization was designed. The highest grade of resection is termed the major osteotomy, and an approach modifier is used to denote the surgical approach(es), including anterior (A), posterior (P), anterior-posterior (AP), posterior-anterior (PA), anterior-posterior-anterior (APA), and posterior-anterior-posterior (PAP). For cases in which multiple grades of osteotomies were performed, the highest grade is termed the major osteotomy, and lower-grade osteotomies are termed minor osteotomies. The nomenclature was evaluated by 11 reviewers through 25 different radiographic clinical cases. The review was performed twice, separated by a minimum 1-week interval. Reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa coefficients. Results The average intrarater reliability was classified as “almost perfect agreement” for the major osteotomy (0.89 [range 0.60–1.00]) and approach modifier (0.99 [0.95–1.00]); it was classified as “moderate agreement” for the minor osteotomy (0.73 [range 0.41–1.00]). The average interrater reliability for the 2 readings was the following: major osteotomy, 0.87 (“almost perfect agreement”); approach modifier, 0.99 (“almost perfect agreement”); and minor osteotomy, 0.55 (“moderate agreement”). Analysis of only major osteotomy plus approach modifier yielded a classification that was “almost perfect” with an average intrarater reliability of 0.90 (0.63–1.00) and an interrater reliability of 0.88 and 0.86 for the two reviews. Conclusions The proposed cervical spine osteotomy nomenclature provides the surgeon with a simple, standard description of the various cervical osteotomies. The reliability analysis demonstrated that this system is consistent and directly applicable. Future work will evaluate the relationship between this system and health-related quality of life metrics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. e555-e567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel K. Cho ◽  
Scott Safir ◽  
Joseph M. Lombardi ◽  
Jun S. Kim

2016 ◽  
Vol 93 ◽  
pp. 469-470
Author(s):  
Jay D. Turner ◽  
Volker K.H. Sonntag

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Skolasky ◽  
Todd J. Albert ◽  
Alexander R. Vaccaro ◽  
Lee H. Riley

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document