Cargando…
To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of caudal instrumentation level on revision rates following posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed. Minimum follow-up was one year. Pati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10538346/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35285337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682221083926 |
_version_ | 1785113304749834240 |
---|---|
author | Couch, Brandon K. Patel, Stuti S. Talentino, Spencer E. Buldo-Licciardi, Michael Evashwick-Rogler, Thomas W. Oyekan, Anthony A. Gannon, Emmett J. Shaw, Jeremy D. Donaldson, William F. Lee, Joon Y. |
author_facet | Couch, Brandon K. Patel, Stuti S. Talentino, Spencer E. Buldo-Licciardi, Michael Evashwick-Rogler, Thomas W. Oyekan, Anthony A. Gannon, Emmett J. Shaw, Jeremy D. Donaldson, William F. Lee, Joon Y. |
author_sort | Couch, Brandon K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of caudal instrumentation level on revision rates following posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed. Minimum follow-up was one year. Patients were divided into two groups based on the caudal level of their index fusion construct (Group 1-cervical and Group 2- thoracic). Reoperation rates were compared between the two groups, and preoperative demographics and radiographic parameters were compared between patients who required revision and those who did not. Multivariate binomial regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for revision surgery. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven (137/204) patients received fusion constructs that terminated at C7 (Group 1), while 67 (67/204) received fusion constructs that terminated at T1 or T2 (Group 2). The revision rate was 8.33% in the combined cohort, 7.3% in Group 1, and 10.4% in Group 2. There was no significant difference in revision rates between the 2 groups (P = .43). Multivariate regression analysis did not identify any independent risk factors for revision surgery. CONCLUSION: This study shows no evidence of increased risk of revision in patients with fusion constructs terminating in the cervical spine when compared to patients with constructs crossing the cervicothoracic junction. These findings support terminating the fusion construct proximal to the cervicothoracic junction when indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10538346 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105383462023-09-29 To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Couch, Brandon K. Patel, Stuti S. Talentino, Spencer E. Buldo-Licciardi, Michael Evashwick-Rogler, Thomas W. Oyekan, Anthony A. Gannon, Emmett J. Shaw, Jeremy D. Donaldson, William F. Lee, Joon Y. Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of caudal instrumentation level on revision rates following posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed. Minimum follow-up was one year. Patients were divided into two groups based on the caudal level of their index fusion construct (Group 1-cervical and Group 2- thoracic). Reoperation rates were compared between the two groups, and preoperative demographics and radiographic parameters were compared between patients who required revision and those who did not. Multivariate binomial regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for revision surgery. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven (137/204) patients received fusion constructs that terminated at C7 (Group 1), while 67 (67/204) received fusion constructs that terminated at T1 or T2 (Group 2). The revision rate was 8.33% in the combined cohort, 7.3% in Group 1, and 10.4% in Group 2. There was no significant difference in revision rates between the 2 groups (P = .43). Multivariate regression analysis did not identify any independent risk factors for revision surgery. CONCLUSION: This study shows no evidence of increased risk of revision in patients with fusion constructs terminating in the cervical spine when compared to patients with constructs crossing the cervicothoracic junction. These findings support terminating the fusion construct proximal to the cervicothoracic junction when indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III SAGE Publications 2022-03-12 2023-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10538346/ /pubmed/35285337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682221083926 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Couch, Brandon K. Patel, Stuti S. Talentino, Spencer E. Buldo-Licciardi, Michael Evashwick-Rogler, Thomas W. Oyekan, Anthony A. Gannon, Emmett J. Shaw, Jeremy D. Donaldson, William F. Lee, Joon Y. To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy |
title | To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy |
title_full | To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy |
title_fullStr | To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy |
title_full_unstemmed | To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy |
title_short | To Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction? Terminating Posterior Cervical Fusion Constructs Proximal to the Cervicothoracic Junction Does Not Impart Increased Risk of Reoperation in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy |
title_sort | to cross the cervicothoracic junction? terminating posterior cervical fusion constructs proximal to the cervicothoracic junction does not impart increased risk of reoperation in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10538346/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35285337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682221083926 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT couchbrandonk tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT patelstutis tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT talentinospencere tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT buldolicciardimichael tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT evashwickroglerthomasw tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT oyekananthonya tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT gannonemmettj tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT shawjeremyd tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT donaldsonwilliamf tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT leejoony tocrossthecervicothoracicjunctionterminatingposteriorcervicalfusionconstructsproximaltothecervicothoracicjunctiondoesnotimpartincreasedriskofreoperationinpatientswithcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy |