scholarly journals Posterior longitudinal ligament resection during microscopic anterior cervical discectomy: technique and safety consideration

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashraf Mohamed Farid ◽  
Sherif Elsayed ElKheshin
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Complete Removal ◽  
Posterior Longitudinal Ligament ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Saline Irrigation ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Safety Consideration ◽  
Sharp Dissection

Abstract Background Herniation of the cervical disk material results in interruption of the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL) in the majority of patients. Routine opening of the PLL during ACDF is a necessary step for complete removal of all disk fragments. Objectives Safety measures during PLL opening during microscopic anterior cervical discectomy and risk-free surgery Study design A retrospective clinical case series Patients and methods The study was conducted on 145 patients. The main symptom was radicular pain. Pre-operative identification of PLL was assessed by MRI. All patients were operated upon by ACDF. We started dissection off the midline in patients with intact ligament while we used the site of disruption to start and complete dissection in patients with interrupted ligament. Follow-up was done monthly. Results Ninety-seven percent of patients underwent single level surgery. The most commonly operated level was C5-6. PLL was interrupted in 60.7% of patients. There was a statistically significant difference between median VAS in immediate, early, and late post-operative period. Bleeding was encountered in 46% of patients. Saline irrigation was a suitable method for hemostasis. Conclusion Conventional MRI is the modality of choice for pre-operative identification of PLL. It is better to use the site of ligament interruption to start sharp dissection and to start lateral to the midline in intact ligament. Sharp dissection is better with curved knife. Thin foot plate Kerrison is suitable for excision of the remaining parts. Hemostasis using saline irrigation is better and non-risky than using bipolar coagulation.

Does smoking have an impact on fusion rate in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and rigid plate fixation?

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 527-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myles Luszczyk ◽  
Justin S. Smith ◽  
Jeffrey S. Fischgrund ◽  
Steven C. Ludwig ◽  
Rick C. Sasso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Solid Fusion ◽  
Cervical Plate ◽  
Anterior Cervical Plate

Object Although smoking has been shown to negatively affect fusion rates in patients undergoing multilevel fusions of the cervical and lumbar spine, the effect of smoking on fusion rates in patients undergoing single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with allograft and plate fixation has yet to be thoroughly investigated. The objective of the present study was to address the effect of smoking on fusion rates in patients undergoing a 1-level ACDF with allograft and a locked anterior cervical plate. Methods This study is composed of patients from the control groups of 5 separate studies evaluating the use of an anterior cervical disc replacement to treat cervical radiculopathy. For each of the 5 studies the control group consisted of patients who underwent a 1-level ACDF with allograft and a locked cervical plate. The authors of the present study reviewed data obtained in a total of 573 patients; 156 patients were smokers and 417 were nonsmokers. A minimum follow-up period of 24 months was required for inclusion in this study. Fusion status was assessed by independent observers using lateral, neutral, and flexion/extension radiographs. Results An overall fusion rate of 91.4% was achieved in all 573 patients. A solid fusion was shown in 382 patients (91.6%) who were nonsmokers. Among patients who were smokers, 142 (91.0%) had radiographic evidence of a solid fusion. A 2-tailed Fisher exact test revealed a p value of 0.867, indicating no difference in the union rates between smokers and nonsmokers. Conclusions The authors found no statistically significant difference in fusion status between smokers and nonsmokers who underwent a single-level ACDF with allograft and a locked anterior cervical plate. Although the authors do not promote tobacco use, it appears that the use of allograft with a locked cervical plate in single-level ACDF among smokers produces similar fusion rates as it does in their nonsmoking counterparts.

scholarly journals Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed using structural allograft or polyetheretherketone: pseudarthrosis and revision surgery rates with minimum 2-year follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-569
Author(s):  
Minghao Wang ◽  
Dean Chou ◽  
Chih-Chang Chang ◽  
Ankit Hirpara ◽  
Yilin Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Anterior Plate ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Posterior Surgery ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Surgery Rates

OBJECTIVEBoth structural allograft and PEEK have been used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There are reports that PEEK has a higher pseudarthrosis rate than structural allograft. The authors compared pseudarthrosis, revision, subsidence, and loss of lordosis rates in patients with PEEK and structural allograft.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with ACDF at their hospital between 2005 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with either PEEK or structural allograft, anterior plate fixation, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were hybrid PEEK and allograft cases, additional posterior surgery, adjacent corpectomies, infection, tumor, stand-alone or integrated screw and cage devices, bone morphogenetic protein use, or lack of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographic variables, number of treated levels, interbody type (PEEK cage vs structural allograft), graft packing material, pseudarthrosis rates, revision surgery rates, subsidence, and cervical lordosis changes were collected. These data were analyzed by Pearson’s chi-square test (or Fisher’s exact test, according to the sample size and expected value) and Student t-test.RESULTSA total of 168 patients (264 levels total, mean follow-up time 39.5 ± 24.0 months) were analyzed. Sixty-one patients had PEEK, and 107 patients had structural allograft. Pseudarthrosis rates for 1-level fusions were 5.4% (PEEK) and 3.4% (allograft) (p > 0.05); 2-level fusions were 7.1% (PEEK) and 8.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05); and ≥ 3-level fusions were 10% (PEEK) and 11.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the subsidence magnitude between PEEK and allograft in 1-, 2-, and ≥ 3-level ACDF (p > 0.05). Postoperative lordosis loss was not different between cohorts for 1- and 2-level surgeries.CONCLUSIONSIn 1- and 2-level ACDF with plating involving the same number of fusion levels, there was no statistically significant difference in the pseudarthrosis rate, revision surgery rate, subsidence, and lordosis loss between PEEK cages and structural allograft.

Albert Dereymaeker and Joseph Cyriel Mulier’s description of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in 1955

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald H. M. A. Bartels ◽  
Jan Goffin
Keyword(s):  
French Literature ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Subsequent Paper ◽  
Intervertebral Disc Space ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Iliac Crest Graft ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Time Period

Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) is a very well-known and often-performed procedure in the practice of spine surgeons. The earliest descriptions of the technique have always been attributed to Cloward, Smith, and Robinson. However, in the French literature, this procedure was also described by others during the exact same time period (in the 1950s).At a meeting in Paris in 1955, Belgians Albert Dereymaeker and Joseph Cyriel Mulier, a neurosurgeon and an orthopedic surgeon, respectively, described the technique that involved an anterior cervical discectomy and the placement of an iliac crest graft in the intervertebral disc space. In 1956, a summary of their oral presentation was published, and a subsequent paper—an illustrated description of the technique and the details of a larger case series with a 3.5-year follow-up period—followed in 1958.The list of authors who first described ACDF should be completed by adding Dereymaeker’s and Mulier’s names. They made an important contribution to the practice of spinal surgery that was not generally known because they published in French.

scholarly journals Safety of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketan Yerneni ◽  
John F Burke ◽  
Pranathi Chunduru ◽  
Annette M Molinaro ◽  
K Daniel Riew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Outpatient Basis ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level I ◽  
High Level

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is being increasingly offered on an outpatient basis. However, the safety profile of outpatient ACDF remains poorly defined. OBJECTIVE To review the medical literature on the safety of outpatient ACDF. METHODS We systematically reviewed the literature for articles published before April 1, 2018, describing outpatient ACDF and associated complications, including incidence of reoperation, stroke, thrombolytic events, dysphagia, hematoma, and mortality. A random-effects analysis was performed comparing complications between the inpatient and outpatient groups. RESULTS We identified 21 articles that satisfied the selection criteria, of which 15 were comparative studies. Most of the existing studies were retrospective, with a lack of level I or II studies on this topic. We found no statistically significant difference between inpatient and outpatient ACDF in overall complications, incidence of stroke, thrombolytic events, dysphagia, and hematoma development. However, patients undergoing outpatient ACDF had lower reported reoperation rates (P < .001), mortality (P < .001), and hospitalization duration (P < .001). CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis indicates that there is a lack of high level of evidence studies regarding the safety of outpatient ACDF. However, the existing literature suggests that outpatient ACDF can be safe, with low complication rates comparable to inpatient ACDF in well-selected patients. Patients with advanced age and comorbidities such as obesity and significant myelopathy are likely not suitable for outpatient ACDF. Spine surgeons must carefully evaluate each patient to decide whether outpatient ACDF is a safe option. Higher quality, large prospective randomized control trials are needed to accurately demonstrate the safety profile of outpatient ACDF.

scholarly journals Optimal Time Period of Wearing Protective Collar After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Qian ◽  
Zhiwei Yu ◽  
Zhenlei Liu ◽  
Wanru Duan ◽  
Zhongjing Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spondylosis ◽  
T Test ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Exclusion Criterion ◽  
Optimal Time ◽  
Axial Symptom ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Paired T Test

Abstract Background: There is still no consensus on the time period of wearing collar after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We aim to investigate the optimal time period of wearing protective collar.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with cervical spondylosis who underwent one to two segment ACDF during January 2016 and December 2017, and included 97 patients who meet inclusion and exclusion criterion. Patients were divided into three groups according to the actual time period of wearing collar after ACDF including 1-4 week group, 5-8 week group, and 9-12 week group. We analyzed Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Axial Symptom (AS) score and Neck Disability Index (NDI) before surgery and at post-operative 3 months to investigate the optimal time period of wearing collar.Results: JOA score: All three groups have a better post-operative JOA score compared with that before surgery (paired t test, p<0.05). There is no significant difference among the three groups with respect to post-operative JOA (ANOVA, p>0.05).AS score: The post-operative AS scores of 1-4 week group and 5-8 week group were significantly better than that before surgery (paired t test, p>0.05). While the post-operative AS score of 9-12 week group was significantly worse than preoperative AS score (paired t test, p<0.05).NDI: All three groups have a better post-operative NDI compared with that before surgery (McNemar test, p<0.05). Of note, in 5-8 week group, the percentage of no deficit increased by 45%, and the percentage of mild deficit decreased by 45% accordingly. That percentage is 26% and 31% in 1-4 week group and 9-12 week group, respectively. There was significant difference among these three groups (Fisher's exact probability test, p<0.05)Conclusions: For cervical spondylosis patients who underwent 1-2 segment ACDF, the optimal time period of wearing protective is 5-8 weeks. This time period results in comparable neurological outcome, least axial symptom risk, and highest chance of no deficit on neck function.

scholarly journals Fivefold higher rate of pseudarthrosis with polyetheretherketone interbody device than with structural allograft used for 1-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie L. Krause ◽  
James T. Obayashi ◽  
Kelly J. Bridges ◽  
Ahmed M. Raslan ◽  
Khoi D. Than
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Tobacco Use ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Bone Growth ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Significant Difference

OBJECTIVECommon interbody graft options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) include structural allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PEEK has gained popularity due to its radiolucency and its elastic modulus, which is similar to that of bone. The authors sought to compare the rates of pseudarthrosis, a lack of solid bone growth across the disc space, and the need for revision surgery with the use of grafts made of allogenic bone versus PEEK.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed 127 cases in which patients had undergone a 1-level ACDF followed by at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. Data on age, sex, body mass index, tobacco use, pseudarthrosis, and the reoperation rate for pseudarthrosis were collected. These data were analyzed by performing a Pearson’s chi-square test.RESULTSOf 127 patients, 56 had received PEEK implants and 71 had received allografts. Forty-six of the PEEK implants (82%) were stand-alone devices. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups with respect to patient age, sex, or body mass index. Twenty-nine (52%) of 56 patients with PEEK implants demonstrated radiographic evidence of pseudarthrosis, compared to 7 (10%) of 71 patients with structural allografts (p < 0.001, OR 9.82; 95% CI 3.836–25.139). Seven patients with PEEK implants required reoperation for pseudarthrosis, compared to 1 patient with an allograft (p = 0.01, OR 10.00; 95% CI 1.192–83.884). There was no significant difference in tobacco use between the PEEK and allograft groups (p = 0.586).CONCLUSIONSThe results of this study demonstrate that the use of PEEK devices in 1-level ACDF is associated with a significantly higher rate of radiographically demonstrated pseudarthrosis and need for revision surgery compared with the use of allografts. Surgeons should be aware of this when deciding on interbody graft options, and reimbursement policies should reflect these discrepancies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document