Cervical Spine Deformity

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


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

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. S307-S308
Author(s):  
Peter G. Passias ◽  
Cheongeun Oh ◽  
Cyrus M. Jalai ◽  
Gregory W. Poorman ◽  
Renaud Lafage ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Hai V. Le ◽  
Joseph B. Wick ◽  
Renaud Lafage ◽  
Gregory M. Mundis ◽  
Robert K. Eastlack ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE The authors’ objective was to determine whether preoperative lateral extension cervical spine radiography can be used to predict osteotomy type and postoperative alignment parameters after cervical spine deformity surgery. METHODS A total of 106 patients with cervical spine deformity were reviewed. Radiographic parameters on preoperative cervical neutral and extension lateral radiography were compared with 3-month postoperative radiographic alignment parameters. The parameters included T1 slope, C2 slope, C2–7 cervical lordosis, cervical sagittal vertical axis, and T1 slope minus cervical lordosis. Associations of radiographic parameters with osteotomy type and surgical approach were also assessed. RESULTS On extension lateral radiography, patients who underwent lower grade osteotomy had significantly lower T1 slope, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis, cervical sagittal vertical axis, and C2 slope. Patients who achieved more normal parameters on extension lateral radiography were more likely to undergo surgery via an anterior approach. Although baseline parameters were significantly different between neutral lateral and extension lateral radiographs, 3-month postoperative lateral and preoperative extension lateral radiographs were statistically similar for T1 slope minus cervical lordosis and C2 slope. CONCLUSIONS Radiographic parameters on preoperative extension lateral radiography were significantly associated with surgical approach and osteotomy grade and were similar to those on 3-month postoperative lateral radiography. These results demonstrated that extension lateral radiography is useful for preoperative planning and predicting postoperative alignment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. E89-E90
Author(s):  
Matthew F Gary

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document