Aims. Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition. Methods. Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom’s criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom’s scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss. Conclusion. Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981–996

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical predictors of surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). We reviewed a consecutive series of 248 patients (71 women and 177 men) with CSM who had undergone surgery at our institution between January 2000 and October 2010. Their mean age was 59.0 years (16 to 86). Medical records, office notes, and operative reports were reviewed for data collection. Special attention was focused on pre-operative duration and severity as well as post-operative persistence of myelopathic symptoms. Disease severity was graded according to the Nurick classification.

Our multivariate logistic regression model indicated that Nurick grade 2 CSM patients have the highest chance of complete symptom resolution (p < 0.001) and improvement to normal gait (p = 0.004) following surgery. Patients who did not improve after surgery had longer duration of myelopathic symptoms than those who did improve post-operatively (17.85 months (1 to 101) vs 11.21 months (1 to 69); p = 0.002). More advanced Nurick grades were not associated with a longer duration of symptoms (p = 0.906).

Our data suggest that patients with Nurick grade 2 CSM are most likely to improve from surgery. The duration of myelopathic symptoms does not have an association with disease severity but is an independent prognostic indicator of surgical outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:966–71.

Dysphagia is a common complication of anterior surgery of the cervical spine. The incidence of post-operative dysphagia may be as high as 71% within the first two weeks after surgery, but gradually decreases during the following months. However, 12% to 14% of patients may have some persistent dysphagia one year after the procedure. It has been shown that female gender, advanced age, multilevel surgery, longer operating time and severe pre-operative neck pain may be risk factors. Although the aetiology remains unclear and is probably multifactorial, proposed causes include oesophageal retraction, prominence of the cervical plate and prevertebral swelling. Recently, pre-operative tracheal traction exercises and the use of retropharyngeal steroids have been proposed as methods of reducing post-operative dysphagia.

We performed a systematic review to assess the incidence, aetiology, risk factors, methods of assessment and management of dysphagia following anterior cervical spinal surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:868–73.

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods. Databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Inclusion criteria involved prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease. Two independent investigators extracted the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome measures were overall and neurological success, and these were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized patient-reported outcomes, including the incidence of further surgery and adjacent segment disease, were summarized and discussed. Results. A total of 22 papers published from 14 RCTs were included, representing 3160 patients with follow-up of up to ten years. Meta-analysis indicated that TDR is superior to ACDF at two years and between four and seven years. In the short-term, patients who underwent TDR had better patient-reported outcomes than those who underwent ACDF, but at two years this was typically not significant. Results between four and seven years showed significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component scores, dysphagia, and satisfaction, all favouring TDR. Most trials found significantly less adjacent segment disease after TDR at both two years (short-term) and between four and seven years (medium- to long-term). Conclusion. TDR is as effective as ACDF and superior for some outcomes. Disc replacement reduces the risk of adjacent segment disease. Continued uncertainty remains about degeneration of the prosthesis. Long-term surveillance of patients who undergo TDR may allow its routine use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:991–1001

Aims. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the clinical relevance of increased facet joint distraction as a result of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for trauma. Patients and Methods. A total of 155 patients (130 men, 25 women. Mean age 42.7 years; 16 to 87) who had undergone ACDF between 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2016 were included in the study. Outcome measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. Lateral cervical spine radiographs taken in the immediate postoperative period were reviewed to compare the interfacet distance of the operated segment with those of the facet joints above and below. Results. There was a statistically significant relationship between greater facet distraction and increased NDI and VAS pain scores. This was further confirmed by Spearman correlation, which showed evidence of a moderate correlation between both NDI score and facet joint distraction (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.34; p < 0.001) and VAS score and facet distraction (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.52; p < 0.001). Furthermore, there was a discernible transition point between outcome scores. Significantly worse outcomes, in terms of both NDI scores (17.8 vs 8.2; p < 0.001) and VAS scores (4.5 vs 1.3; p < 0.001), were seen with facet distraction of 3 mm or more. Patients who went on to have a posterior fusion also had increased NDI and VAS scores, independent of facet distraction. Conclusion. After undergoing ACDF for the treatment of cervical spine injury, patients with facet joint distraction of 3 mm or more have worse NDI and VAS pain scores. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1201–7

Aims. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mobi-C implant in cervical disc degeneration, a randomised study was conducted, comparing the Mobi-C prosthesis arthroplasty with anterior cervical disc fusion (ACDF) in patients with single level cervical spondylosis. Patients and Methods. From January 2008 to July 2009, 99 patients were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups, those having a Mobi-C implant (n = 51; 30 men, 21 women) and those undergoing ACDF (n = 48; 28 men, 20 women).The patients were followed up for five years, with the primary outcomes being the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analogue scale for pain and the incidence of further surgery. The secondary outcomes were the Neck Disability Index and range of movement (ROM) of the treated segment. Results. The incidence of further surgery was found to be statistically significant between the two groups (p = 0.49), with seven ACDF patients requiring further surgery and only one Mobi-C patient requiring re-operation. There were significant differences (p < 0.001) between the two groups in the ROM of the treated segment. However, both Mobi-C surgery and ACDF surgery were effective in improving the patient’s clinical symptoms. Take home message: Mobi-C implant surgery is a safe alternative to ACDF surgery in cervical disc degeneration. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:829–3

Objectives. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was evaluated after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures in a randomized, controlled clinical study performed for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. PEMF significantly increased fusion rates at six months, but 12-month fusion outcomes for subjects at elevated risk for pseudoarthrosis were not thoroughly reported. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of PEMF treatment on subjects at increased risk for pseudoarthrosis after ACDF procedures. Methods. Two evaluations were performed that compared fusion rates between PEMF stimulation and a historical control (160 subjects) from the FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) study: a post hoc (PH) analysis of high-risk subjects from the FDA study (PH PEMF); and a multicentre, open-label (OL) study consisting of 274 subjects treated with PEMF (OL PEMF). Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression was used to compare fusion rates between PEMF-treated subjects and historical controls. Results. In separate comparisons of PH PEMF and OL PEMF groups to the historical control group, PEMF treatment significantly (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test) increased the fusion rate at six and 12 months for certain high-risk subjects who had at least one clinical risk factor of being elderly, a nicotine user, osteoporotic, or diabetic; and for those with at least one clinical risk factor and who received at least a two- or three-level arthrodesis. Conclusion. Adjunctive PEMF treatment can be recommended for patients who are at high risk for pseudoarthrosis. Cite this article: D. Coric, D. E. Bullard, V. V. Patel, J. T. Ryaby, B. L. Atkinson, D. He, R. D. Guyer. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation may improve fusion rates in cervical arthrodesis in high-risk populations. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:124–130. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.72.BJR-2017-0221.R1

The August 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Steroids may be useful in avoiding dysphagia in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Perhaps X-Stop ought to stop?; Is cervical plexus block in ACDF the gateway to day case spinal surgery?; Epidural past its heyday?; Steroids in lumbar back pain; Lumbar disc replacement improving; Post-discectomy arthritis

The February 2015 Spine Roundup. 360 . looks at: Paracetamol use for lower back pain; En-bloc resection of vertebra reported for the first time; Spinopelvic disassociation under the spotlight; Hope for back pain; Disc replacement and ACDF equivalent in randomised study; Interspinous process devices ineffective

Aims. We aimed to retrospectively assess the accuracy and safety of CT navigated pedicle screws and to compare accuracy in the cervical and thoracic spine (C2-T8) with (COMB) and without (POST) prior anterior surgery (anterior cervical discectomy or corpectomy and fusion with ventral plating: ACDF/ACCF). Patients and Methods. A total of 592 pedicle screws, which were used in 107 consecutively operated patients (210 COMB, 382 POST), were analysed. The accuracy of positioning was determined according to the classification of Gertzbein and Robbins on post-operative CT scans. Results. High accuracy was achieved in 524 screws (88.5%), 192 (87.7%) in the cervical spine and 332 (89%) in the thoracic spine, respectively. The results in the two surgical groups were compared and a logistic regression mixed model was performed to analyse the risk of low accuracy. Significantly lower accuracy was found in the COMB group with 82.9% versus 91.6% in the POST group (p = 0.036). There were no neurological complications, but two vertebral artery lesions were recorded. Three patients underwent revision surgery for malpositioning of a screw. Although the risk of malpositioning of a screw after primary anterior surgery was estimated to be 2.4-times higher than with posterior surgery alone, the overall rates of complication and revision were low. Conclusion. We therefore conclude that CT navigated pedicle screws can be positioned safely although greater caution must be taken in patients who have previously undergone anterior surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1373–80

The February 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: S2AI screws: At what cost?; Just how good is spinal deformity surgery?; Is 80 years of age too late in the day for spine surgery?; Factors affecting the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted surgery; Factors causing delay in discharge in patients eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion surgery; Anterior cervical discectomy or fusion and selective laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Surgery for cervical radiculopathy: what is the complication burden?; Hypercholesterolemia and neck pain; Return to work after surgery for cervical radiculopathy: a nationwide registry-based observational study.

The April 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy; Spine surgical site infections: a single debridement is not enough; Lenke type 5, anterior, or posterior: systematic review and meta-analysis; Epidural steroid injections and postoperative infection in lumbar decompression or fusion; Noninferiority of posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy; Identifying delays to surgical treatment for metastatic disease; Cervical disc replacement and adjacent segment disease: the NECK trial; Predicting complication in adult spine deformity surgery.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the type of cervical disc herniation influences the severity of symptoms at the time of presentation, and the outcome after surgical treatment.

The October 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Analysis of risk factors for non-fusion of bone graft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a clinical retrospective study; Does paraspinal muscle mass predict lumbar lordosis before and after decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis?; Return to work after surgery for lumbar disk herniation: a nationwide registry-based study; Can the six-minute walking test assess ambulatory function impairment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy?; Complications after adult deformity surgery: losing more than sleep; Frailty limits how good we can get in adult spine deformity surgery.

The December 2022 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis protocol on a Level 1 trauma centre patient database; Non-specific spondylodiscitis: a new perspective for surgical treatment; Disc degeneration could be recovered after chemonucleolysis; Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy- anterior cervical discectomy and fusion “hybrid” procedures: how does the alignment look?; Rivaroxaban or enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; Surgical site infection: when do we have to remove the implants?; Determination of a neurologic safe zone for bicortical S1 pedicle placement; Do you need to operate on unstable spine fractures in the elderly: outcomes and mortality; Degeneration to deformity: when does the patient need both?

Aims

The number of patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy has increased. In many countries, public hospitals have limited capacity. This has resulted in long waiting times for elective treatment and a need for supplementary private healthcare. It is uncertain whether the management of patients and the outcome of treatment are equivalent in public and private hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the management and patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy in public and private hospitals in Norway, and to assess whether the effectiveness of the treatment was equivalent.

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.