Cargando…

Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes and complications between the anterior and posterior approaches for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhai, Ji-Liang, Guo, Shi-Gong, Nie, Li, Hu, Jian-Hua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10631575/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33273330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000001146
_version_ 1785132390774996992
author Zhai, Ji-Liang
Guo, Shi-Gong
Nie, Li
Hu, Jian-Hua
author_facet Zhai, Ji-Liang
Guo, Shi-Gong
Nie, Li
Hu, Jian-Hua
author_sort Zhai, Ji-Liang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes and complications between the anterior and posterior approaches for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. METHODS: A total of 19 patients underwent anterior decompression and fusion and 25 patients underwent posterior laminoplasty and instrumentation in this study. Perioperative information, intraoperative blood loss, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications were recorded. Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, 36-item short form survey (SF-36) score and cervical alignment were assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in JOA scores between the anterior and posterior group preoperatively (11.6 ± 1.6 vs. 12.1 ± 1.5), immediately postoperatively (14.4 ± 1.1 vs. 13.8 ± 1.3), or at the last follow-up (14.6 ± 1.0 vs. 14.2 ± 1.1) (P > 0.05). The JOA scores significantly improved immediately postoperatively and at the last follow-up in both groups compared with their preoperative values. The recovery rate was significantly higher in the anterior group both immediately postoperatively and at the last follow-up. The SF-36 score was significantly higher in the anterior group at the last follow-up compared with the preoperative value (69.4 vs. 61.7). Imaging revealed that there was no significant difference in the Cobb angle at C2–C7 between the two groups preoperatively (−2.0° ± 7.3° vs. −1.4° ± 7.5°). The Cobb angle significantly improved immediately postoperatively (12.3° ± 4.2° vs. 9.2° ± 3.6°) and at the last follow-up (12.4° ± 3.5° vs. 9.0° ± 2.6°) in both groups compared with their preoperative values (P = 0.00). Three patients had temporary dysphagia in the anterior group and four patients had persistent axial symptoms in the posterior group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the anterior and posterior approaches were effective in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy in terms of neurological clinical outcomes and radiological features. However, the JOA score recovery rate and SF-36 score in the anterior group were significantly higher. Persistent axial pain could be a major concern when undertaking the posterior approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10631575
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106315752020-12-05 Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy Zhai, Ji-Liang Guo, Shi-Gong Nie, Li Hu, Jian-Hua Chin Med J (Engl) Original Articles BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes and complications between the anterior and posterior approaches for four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. METHODS: A total of 19 patients underwent anterior decompression and fusion and 25 patients underwent posterior laminoplasty and instrumentation in this study. Perioperative information, intraoperative blood loss, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications were recorded. Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, 36-item short form survey (SF-36) score and cervical alignment were assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in JOA scores between the anterior and posterior group preoperatively (11.6 ± 1.6 vs. 12.1 ± 1.5), immediately postoperatively (14.4 ± 1.1 vs. 13.8 ± 1.3), or at the last follow-up (14.6 ± 1.0 vs. 14.2 ± 1.1) (P > 0.05). The JOA scores significantly improved immediately postoperatively and at the last follow-up in both groups compared with their preoperative values. The recovery rate was significantly higher in the anterior group both immediately postoperatively and at the last follow-up. The SF-36 score was significantly higher in the anterior group at the last follow-up compared with the preoperative value (69.4 vs. 61.7). Imaging revealed that there was no significant difference in the Cobb angle at C2–C7 between the two groups preoperatively (−2.0° ± 7.3° vs. −1.4° ± 7.5°). The Cobb angle significantly improved immediately postoperatively (12.3° ± 4.2° vs. 9.2° ± 3.6°) and at the last follow-up (12.4° ± 3.5° vs. 9.0° ± 2.6°) in both groups compared with their preoperative values (P = 0.00). Three patients had temporary dysphagia in the anterior group and four patients had persistent axial symptoms in the posterior group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the anterior and posterior approaches were effective in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy in terms of neurological clinical outcomes and radiological features. However, the JOA score recovery rate and SF-36 score in the anterior group were significantly higher. Persistent axial pain could be a major concern when undertaking the posterior approach. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-12-05 2020-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10631575/ /pubmed/33273330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000001146 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Articles
Zhai, Ji-Liang
Guo, Shi-Gong
Nie, Li
Hu, Jian-Hua
Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_full Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_fullStr Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_short Comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
title_sort comparison of the anterior and posterior approach in treating four-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10631575/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33273330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000001146
work_keys_str_mv AT zhaijiliang comparisonoftheanteriorandposteriorapproachintreatingfourlevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT guoshigong comparisonoftheanteriorandposteriorapproachintreatingfourlevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT nieli comparisonoftheanteriorandposteriorapproachintreatingfourlevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy
AT hujianhua comparisonoftheanteriorandposteriorapproachintreatingfourlevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy