Objective

This retrospective cohort study seeks to identify risk factors associated with complications following posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) surgery.

Methods

Adults undergoing PCLF from 2012 through 2018 at a single center were identified. Demographic and radiographic data, surgical characteristics, and complication rates were compared. Multivariate logistic regression models identified independent predictors of complications following surgery.

Results

A total of 196 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The medical, surgical, and overall complication rates were 10.2%, 23.0%, and 29.1% respectively. Risk factors associated with medical complications in multivariate analysis included impaired ambulation status (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; p=0.02) and estimated blood loss over 500 mL (OR, 3.67; p=0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed preoperative narcotic use (OR, 2.43; p=0.02) and operative time (OR, 1.005; p=0.03) as risk factors for surgical complication, whereas antidepressant use was a protective factor (OR, 0.21; p=0.01). Overall complication was associated with preoperative narcotic use (OR, 1.97; p=0.04) and higher intraoperative blood loss (OR, 1.0007; p=0.03).

Conclusion

Preoperative narcotic use and estimated blood loss predicted the incidence of complications following PCLF for CSM. Ambulation status was a significant predictor of the development of a medical complication specifically. These results may help surgeons in counseling patients who may be at increased risk of complication following surgery.

Study design

Multi-institutional retrospective study.

Objective

The goal of the current study is to quantify the incidence of 2 extremely rare complications of cervical spine surgery; hypoglossal and glossopharyngeal nerve palsies.

Methods

A total of 8887 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery from 2005 to 2011 were included in the study from 21 institutions.

Results

No glossopharyngeal nerve injuries were reported. One hypoglossal nerve injury was reported after a C3-7 laminectomy (0.01%). This deficit resolved with conservative management. The rate by institution ranged from 0% to 1.28%. Although not directly injured by the surgical procedure, the transient nerve injury might have been related to patient positioning as has been described previously in the literature.

Conclusions

Hypoglossal nerve injury during cervical spine surgery is an extremely rare complication. Institutional rates may vary. Care should be taken during posterior cervical surgery to avoid hyperflexion of the neck and endotracheal tube malposition.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Objective

Factors that predict outcomes for adult cervical spine deformity (ACSD) have not been well defined. To compare ACSD patients with best versus worst outcomes.

Methods

This study was based on a prospective, multicenter observational ACSD cohort. Best versus worst outcomes were compared based on Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NP-NRS), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores.

Results

Of 111 patients, 80 (72%) had minimum 1-year follow-up. For NDI, compared with best outcome patients (n = 28), worst outcome patients (n = 32) were more likely to have had a major complication (P = .004) and to have undergone a posterior-only procedure (P = .039), had greater Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = .009), and had worse postoperative C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis (SVA; P = .027). For NP-NRS, compared with best outcome patients (n = 26), worst outcome patients (n = 18) were younger (P = .045), had worse baseline NP-NRS (P = .034), and were more likely to have had a minor complication (P = .030). For the mJOA, compared with best outcome patients (n = 16), worst outcome patients (n = 18) were more likely to have had a major complication (P = .007) and to have a better baseline mJOA (P = .030). Multivariate models for NDI included posterior-only surgery (P = .006), major complication (P = .002), and postoperative C7-S1 SVA (P = .012); models for NP-NRS included baseline NP-NRS (P = .009), age (P = .017), and posterior-only surgery (P = .038); and models for mJOA included major complication (P = .008).

Conclusions

Factors distinguishing best and worst ACSD surgery outcomes included patient, surgical, and radiographic factors. These findings suggest areas that may warrant greater awareness to optimize patient counseling and outcomes.

Study design

Narrative Review.

Objective

To (i) discuss why assessment and monitoring of disease progression is critical in Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); (ii) outline the important features of an ideal assessment tool and (iii) discuss current and novel strategies for detecting subtle deterioration in DCM.

Methods

Literature review.

Results

Degenerative cervical myelopathy is an overarching term used to describe progressive injury to the cervical spinal cord by age-related changes of the spinal axis. Based on a study by Smith et al (2020), the prevalence of DCM is approximately 2.3% and is expected to rise as the global population ages. Given the global impact of this disease, it is essential to address important knowledge gaps and prioritize areas for future investigation. As part of the AO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) project, a priority setting partnership was initiated to increase research efficiency by identifying the top ten research priorities for DCM. One of the top ten priorities for future DCM research was: What assessment tools can be used to evaluate functional impairment, disability and quality of life in people with DCM? What instruments, tools or methods can be used or developed to monitor people with DCM for disease progression or improvement either before or after surgical treatment?

Conclusions

With the increasing prevalence of DCM, effective surveillance of this population will require both the implementation of a monitoring framework as well as the development of new assessment tools.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study of prospectively accrued data.

Objective

To evaluate a large, prospective, multicentre dataset of surgically treated degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) cases on the contemporary risk of C5 palsy with surgical approach.

Summary of background data

The influence of surgical technique on postoperative C5 palsy after decompression for DCM is intensely debated. Comprehensive, covariate-adjusted analyses are needed using contemporary data.

Methods

Patients with moderate to severe DCM were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter, randomized, Phase III CSM-Protect clinical trial and underwent either anterior or posterior decompression between Jan 31, 2012 and May 16, 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative C5 palsy, defined as the onset of muscle weakness by at least one grade in manual muscle test at the C5 myotome with slight or absent sensory disruption after cervical surgery. Two comparative cohorts were made based on the anterior or posterior surgical approach. Multivariate hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for C5 palsy.

Results

A total of 283 patients were included, and 53.4% underwent posterior decompression. The total incidence of postoperative C5 palsy was 7.4% and was significantly higher in patients who underwent posterior decompression compared with anterior decompression (11.26% vs. 3.03%, P =0.008). After multivariable regression, the posterior approach was independently associated with greater than four times the likelihood of postoperative C5 palsy ( P =0.017). Rates of C5 palsy recovery were comparable between the two surgical approaches.

Conclusion

The odds of postoperative C5 palsy are significantly higher after posterior decompression compared to anterior decompression for DCM. This may influence surgical decision-making when there is equipoise in deciding between anterior and posterior treatment options for DCM.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic Level-II.

Study design

Guideline development.

Objectives

The objective of this study is to develop guidelines that outline how to best manage (1) patients with mild, moderate, and severe myelopathy and (2) nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression with or without clinical symptoms of radiculopathy.

Methods

Five systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to synthesize evidence on disease natural history; risk factors of disease progression; the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative and surgical management; the impact of preoperative duration of symptoms and myelopathy severity on treatment outcomes; and the frequency, timing, and predictors of symptom development. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, and their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).

Results

Our recommendations were as follows: (1) "We recommend surgical intervention for patients with moderate and severe DCM." (2) "We suggest offering surgical intervention or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation for patients with mild DCM. If initial nonoperative management is pursued, we recommend operative intervention if there is neurological deterioration and suggest operative intervention if the patient fails to improve." (3) "We suggest not offering prophylactic surgery for non-myelopathic patients with evidence of cervical cord compression without signs or symptoms of radiculopathy. We suggest that these patients be counseled as to potential risks of progression, educated about relevant signs and symptoms of myelopathy, and be followed clinically." (4) "Non-myelopathic patients with cord compression and clinical evidence of radiculopathy with or without electrophysiological confirmation are at a higher risk of developing myelopathy and should be counselled about this risk. We suggest offering either surgical intervention or nonoperative treatment consisting of close serial follow-up or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation. In the event of myelopathic development, the patient should be managed according to the recommendations above."

Conclusions

These guidelines will promote standardization of care for patients with DCM, decrease the heterogeneity of management strategies and encourage clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study. OBJECTIVES: The radiographic diagnosis of non-union is not standardized. Prior authors have suggested using a cutoff of <1 mm interspinous process motion (ISPM) on flexion-extension radiographs, but the ability of practicing surgeons to make these measurements reliably is not clear. METHODS: 29 practicing spine surgeons measured ISPM on 19 levels of ACDF from 9 patients. Surgeons relied on these measurements to report on fusion status. Inter-observer correlation co-efficients (ICC), standard error (SEM) and the minimum detectable difference (MD) of these measurements were calculated. We screened for clerical errors by checking measurements more than one standard deviation from the group mean. RESULTS: The ICC for ISPM was .76 (.64; .88) with a SEM of 1 mm and a MD of 2.76 mm. Agreement on fusion status was moderate, with an ICC of .6 (.44; .76). After screening for and removing clerical errors, the ICC improved to .82 (.71; .91), SEM improved to .83 mm, and MD improved to 2.29 mm. Six reviewers had an ICC >.9. The ICC from these high performing reviewers was .94 (.9; .97), SEM was .45 mm, and MD was 1.26 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The MD of 2.29 mm in our study group was not precise enough to support a cutoff of <1 mm ISPM as the sole measurement technique in screening for non-union after ACDF, and there was only moderate agreement amongst surgeons on fusion status based on dynamic radiographs. More stringent techniques are necessary to avoid mis-diagnosing non-union in clinical studies. Future studies should consider auditing measurements to identify clerical errors.