Cargando…

Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND: C7 instrumentation during posterior cervicothoracic fusion can be challenging because it requires additional work of either placing side connectors to a single rod or placing two rods. Our clinical observations suggested that skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multi-level posterior cerv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patel, Saavan, Sadeh, Morteza, Tobin, Matthew K., Chaudhry, Nauman S., Gragnaniello, Cristian, Neckrysh, Sergey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9547698/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36285098
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jss-21-85
_version_ 1784805320682373120
author Patel, Saavan
Sadeh, Morteza
Tobin, Matthew K.
Chaudhry, Nauman S.
Gragnaniello, Cristian
Neckrysh, Sergey
author_facet Patel, Saavan
Sadeh, Morteza
Tobin, Matthew K.
Chaudhry, Nauman S.
Gragnaniello, Cristian
Neckrysh, Sergey
author_sort Patel, Saavan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: C7 instrumentation during posterior cervicothoracic fusion can be challenging because it requires additional work of either placing side connectors to a single rod or placing two rods. Our clinical observations suggested that skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multi-level posterior cervicothoracic fusion will result in minimal intraoperative complications and decreased blood-loss while still maintaining sagittal balance parameters of cervical fusion. The objective of this study is to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes of skipping C7 instrumentation compared to instrumenting the C7 vertebra in posterior cervicothoracic fusion. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 314 consecutive patients who underwent multilevel posterior cervical fusion (PCF) at our institution. Out of 314 patients, 19 were instrumented at C7 serving as the control group, while the remaining 295 patients were not. Evaluation of efficacy was based on intraoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), significant long-term complications, and radiographic evidence of fusion. RESULTS: Skipping the C7 level resulted in a significant reduction in EBL (488±576 vs. 822±1,137; P=0.007); however, operative time was similar between groups (174±95 vs. 184±86 minutes; P=0.844). Complications were minimal in both groups and not statistically significant. Radiographic analysis revealed C7 bridge patients had a significantly increased postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (29.3±13.1 vs. 20.2±3.1 mm; P=0.008); however, there was no significant difference between groups in SVA correction (−0.3±16.2 vs. −16.1±16.0 mm; P=0.867), T1 slope correction (3.4°±9.9° vs. 3.2°±5.5°; P=0.127), or cervical cobb angle correction (−5.7°±14.2° vs. −7.0°±12.2°; P=0.519). There were no significant long-term complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multilevel posterior cervicothoracic fusion is associated with significantly reduced operative blood loss without loss of radiographic correction. This study demonstrates the clinical benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion with maintenance of radiographic correction parameters.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9547698
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95476982022-10-24 Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis Patel, Saavan Sadeh, Morteza Tobin, Matthew K. Chaudhry, Nauman S. Gragnaniello, Cristian Neckrysh, Sergey J Spine Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: C7 instrumentation during posterior cervicothoracic fusion can be challenging because it requires additional work of either placing side connectors to a single rod or placing two rods. Our clinical observations suggested that skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multi-level posterior cervicothoracic fusion will result in minimal intraoperative complications and decreased blood-loss while still maintaining sagittal balance parameters of cervical fusion. The objective of this study is to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes of skipping C7 instrumentation compared to instrumenting the C7 vertebra in posterior cervicothoracic fusion. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 314 consecutive patients who underwent multilevel posterior cervical fusion (PCF) at our institution. Out of 314 patients, 19 were instrumented at C7 serving as the control group, while the remaining 295 patients were not. Evaluation of efficacy was based on intraoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), significant long-term complications, and radiographic evidence of fusion. RESULTS: Skipping the C7 level resulted in a significant reduction in EBL (488±576 vs. 822±1,137; P=0.007); however, operative time was similar between groups (174±95 vs. 184±86 minutes; P=0.844). Complications were minimal in both groups and not statistically significant. Radiographic analysis revealed C7 bridge patients had a significantly increased postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (29.3±13.1 vs. 20.2±3.1 mm; P=0.008); however, there was no significant difference between groups in SVA correction (−0.3±16.2 vs. −16.1±16.0 mm; P=0.867), T1 slope correction (3.4°±9.9° vs. 3.2°±5.5°; P=0.127), or cervical cobb angle correction (−5.7°±14.2° vs. −7.0°±12.2°; P=0.519). There were no significant long-term complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multilevel posterior cervicothoracic fusion is associated with significantly reduced operative blood loss without loss of radiographic correction. This study demonstrates the clinical benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion with maintenance of radiographic correction parameters. AME Publishing Company 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9547698/ /pubmed/36285098 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jss-21-85 Text en 2022 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Patel, Saavan
Sadeh, Morteza
Tobin, Matthew K.
Chaudhry, Nauman S.
Gragnaniello, Cristian
Neckrysh, Sergey
Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis
title Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis
title_full Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis
title_fullStr Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis
title_short Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis
title_sort clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping c7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9547698/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36285098
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jss-21-85
work_keys_str_mv AT patelsaavan clinicalandradiographicbenefitsofskippingc7instrumentationinposteriorcervicothoracicfusionaretrospectiveanalysis
AT sadehmorteza clinicalandradiographicbenefitsofskippingc7instrumentationinposteriorcervicothoracicfusionaretrospectiveanalysis
AT tobinmatthewk clinicalandradiographicbenefitsofskippingc7instrumentationinposteriorcervicothoracicfusionaretrospectiveanalysis
AT chaudhrynaumans clinicalandradiographicbenefitsofskippingc7instrumentationinposteriorcervicothoracicfusionaretrospectiveanalysis
AT gragnaniellocristian clinicalandradiographicbenefitsofskippingc7instrumentationinposteriorcervicothoracicfusionaretrospectiveanalysis
AT neckryshsergey clinicalandradiographicbenefitsofskippingc7instrumentationinposteriorcervicothoracicfusionaretrospectiveanalysis