Anterior cervical surgery to treat diffuse idiopathic skeletal hypertrophic combined with cervical disc herniation

✓ Between 1971 and 1977, 334 patients at the Presbyterian-University Hospital underwent anterior surgery for treatment of hard or soft cervical disc herniation. Of these patients, 295 had radicular symptoms only. This retrospective study details the results of anterior cervical surgery for treatment of lateral disc herniation in 253 patients who survived 1 to 7 years postoperatively. Sixty-seven percent had excellent or good results. Although 77% initially noted complete relief of symptoms after surgery, 38% subsequently developed one or more recurrent symptoms at some time during the follow-up period. The overall results of surgery for soft disc cases were no different from the results for hard discs, although significantly more hard disc cases required postoperative conservative treatment. The results of surgery after anterior fusion were no different than the results after anterior discectomy alone. However, overall postoperative complications were more frequent and hospitalizations were longer in the patients who underwent fusion. Patients with multiple-level surgery had statistically similar results to those with single-level surgery. None of the nine preoperative clinical features reported by others to influence the results of anterior cervical surgery were found to consistently affect outcome in the present series.

Download Full-text

Astronaut Michael Collins, Apollo 8, and the anterior cervical fusion that changed the history of human spaceflight

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2018.11.spine18629 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 31 (1) ◽

pp. 87-92

Author(s):

Richard Menger ◽

Michael Wolf ◽

Jai Deep Thakur ◽

Anil Nanda ◽

Anthony Martino

Keyword(s):

Air Force ◽

Disc Herniation ◽

The United States ◽

Cervical Disc ◽

The Moon ◽

Cascading Effect ◽

Cervical Surgery ◽

History Of ◽

Anterior Cervical Surgery ◽

The Impact

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy declared that the United States would send a man to the moon and safely bring him home before the end of the decade. Astronaut Michael Collins was one of those men. He flew to the moon on the historic flight of Apollo 11 while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on its surface. However, this was not supposed to be the case.Astronaut Collins was scheduled to fly on Apollo 8. While training, in 1968, he started developing symptoms of cervical myelopathy. He underwent evaluation at Wilford Hall Air Force Hospital in San Antonio and was noted to have a C5–6 disc herniation and posterior osteophyte on myelography. Air Force Lieutenant General (Dr.) Paul W. Myers performed an anterior cervical discectomy with placement of iliac bone graft. As a result, Astronaut James Lovell took his place on Apollo 8 flying the uncertain and daring first mission to the moon. This had a cascading effect on the rotation of astronauts, placing Michael Collins on the Apollo 11 flight that first landed men on the moon. It also placed Astronaut James Lovell in a rotation that exposed him to be the Commander of the fateful Apollo 13 flight.Here, the authors chronicle the history of Astronaut Collins’ anterior cervical surgery and the impact of his procedure on the rotation of astronaut flight selection, and they review the pivotal historic nature of the Apollo 8 spaceflight. The authors further discuss the ongoing issue of cervical disc herniation among astronauts.

Download Full-text

Cervical brucellar spondylodiscitis mimicking a cervical disc herniation with epidural abscess: a case report

Acta Medica Anatolia ◽

10.15824/actamedica.5000012115 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 0 (0) ◽

Author(s):

Ahmet Aslan ◽

Ünal Kurtoğlu ◽

Mustafa Özgür Akça ◽

Sinan Tan ◽

Uğur Soylu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Disc Herniation ◽

Epidural Abscess ◽

Cervical Disc Herniation ◽

Cervical Disc

Download Full-text

Effects of Rehabilitation Exercise After Cervical Disc Herniation Reconstruction on Cervical Extension Strength, Flexion/Extension Strength Ratio and VAS in Female Patients with Neck Pain

Korean Journal of Sports Science ◽

10.35159/kjss.2020.10.29.5.965 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (5) ◽

pp. 965-976

Author(s):

Gun-Do Kim ◽

Gil-Soo Han

Keyword(s):

Neck Pain ◽

Disc Herniation ◽

Cervical Disc Herniation ◽

Cervical Disc ◽

Strength Ratio ◽

Female Patients ◽

Flexion Extension ◽

Rehabilitation Exercise

Download Full-text

Second ever reported case of central cause of unilateral foot drop due to cervical disc herniation: Case report and review of literature

International Journal of Surgery Case Reports ◽

10.1016/j.ijscr.2021.105928 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 105928

Author(s):

Mutaz Alhardallo ◽

Walid El Ansari ◽

AbdulMoeen Baco

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Disc Herniation ◽

Foot Drop ◽

Cervical Disc Herniation ◽

Cervical Disc ◽

Review Of Literature

Download Full-text

Comparative evaluation of posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope for cervical disc herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-021-03980-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Tong Yu ◽

Jiu-Ping Wu ◽

Jun Zhang ◽

Hai-Chi Yu ◽

Qin-Yi Liu

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Disc Herniation ◽

Large Diameter ◽

Clinical Results ◽

Cervical Disc Herniation ◽

Cervical Disc ◽

Cervical Discectomy ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Cord Injury ◽

Percutaneous Endoscopy

Abstract Background Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope. Methods From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up. Results Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608 ± 3.7607 min vs. 11.256 ± 2.7161 min, p < 0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650 ± 4.1730 min vs. 12.712 ± 3.3079 min, p < 0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p < 0.05). Conclusion The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

Download Full-text