Abstract
Background
The optimal surgical approach for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) has not been defined, and the relative merits of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy (2-level or skip 1-level corpectomy) and fusion (ACCF) remain controversial. However, few comparative studies have been conducted on these two surgical approaches.
Methods
This study retrospectively reviewed the case histories of 120 patients that underwent surgical treatment for 3- or 4-level CSM from July 2003 to June 2008. One hundred and twenty patients (81 male and 39 female) of mean age 58.3 ± 9.8 years (37–78) were included. The study compared perioperative parameters (blood loss, operation times), complications [surgery-related complications (CSF, hoarseness, epidural hematoma, C5-palsy, dysphagia), instrumentation and graft related complications (dislodgement, subsidence)], clinical parameters [Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, Neck Dysfunciton Index (NDI) scores], and radiologic parameters (segmental lordosis, fusion rate).
Results
At a minimum of 2-year follow-up, both ACDF and ACCF groups demonstrated a significant increase in the JOA scores (preoperatively 9.25 ± 1.9 and 8.86 ± 1.9, postoperatively 13.86 ± 1.6 and 13.27 ± 1.8, respectively), segmental lordosis (preoperatively 9.79 ± 3.4 and 9.54 ± 3.0, postoperatively 17.75 ± 2.6 and 14.49 ± 2.5, respectively) and NDI scores (preoperatively 12.56 ± 3.0 and 12.21 ± 3.4, postoperatively 3.44 ± 1.7 and 5.68 ± 2.6, respectively). Six patients (2 dislodgement, 4 subsidence) in ACCF group had instrumentation and graft related-complications and they had no obvious neurological symptoms without a second operation. Blood loss (102.81 ± 51.3 and 149.05 ± 74, respectively, P = 0.000), NDI scores (P = 0.000), and instrumentation and graft related-complications (P = 0.032) were significantly lower in the ACDF group, whereas operation time (138.07 ± 30.9 and 125.08 ± 26.4, respectively, P = 0.021) and segmental lordosis (P = 0.000) were significantly greater in the ACDF group. Other parameters were not significantly different in the two groups.
Conclusions
Surgical managements of 3- or 4-level CSM by ACDF or ACCF showed no significant differences in terms of achieved clinical symptom improvements, with the exception of better postoperative NDI scores in ACDF. In addition, ACDF is better than ACCF in terms of blood loss, lordotic curvature improvement and instrumentation and graft related-complication rates, with the exception of operation times.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rao RD, Gourab K, David KS (2006) Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1619–1640
Ghogawala Z, Coumans JV, Benzel EC et al (2007) Ventral versus dorsal decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgeons’ assessment of eligibility for randomization in a proposed randomized controlled trial: results of a survey of the Cervical Spine Research Society. Spine 32:429–436
Konya D, Ozgen S, Gercek A et al (2009) Outcomes for combined anterior and posterior surgical approaches for patients with multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci 16:404–409
Hillard VH, Apfelbaum RI (2006) Surgical management of cervical myelopathy: indications and techniques for multilevel cervical discectomy. Spine J 6(6 Suppl):S242–S251
Witwer BP, Trost GR (2007) Cervical spondylosis: ventral or dorsal surgery. Neurosurgery 60((1 Supp1 1)):S130–S136
Yonenobu K, Fuji T, Ono K et al (1985) Choice of surgical treatment for multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 10:710–716
Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Iwasaki H et al (2000) A comparative study of surgical approaches for cervical compressive myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 381:129–136
Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J et al (2008) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: complications and outcomes after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery 62:455–462
Shamji MF, Cook C, Pietrobon R et al (2009) Impact of surgical approach on complications and resource utilization of cervical spine fusion: a nationwide perspective to the surgical treatment of diffuse cervical spondylosis. Spine J 9:31–38
Kirkpatrick JS, Levy JA, Carillo J et al (1999) Reconstruction after multilevel corpectomy in the cervical spine. A sagittal plane biomechanical study. Spine 24:1186–1191
Sevki K, Mehmet T, Ufuk T et al (2004) Results of surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior cervical corpectomy and stabilization. Spine 29:2493–2500
Chibbaro S, Benvenuti L, Carnesecchi S et al (2006) Anterior cervical corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: experience and surgical results in a series of 70 consecutive patients. J Clin Neurosci 13:233–238
Chang SW, Kakarla UK, Maughan PH et al (2010) Four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation: radiographic and clinical results. Neurosurgery 66:639–647
Stewart TJ, Schlenk RP, Benzel EC (2007) Multiple level discectomy and fusion. Neurosurgery 60((1 Supp1 1)):S143–S148
Ying Z, Xinwei W, Jing Z et al (2007) Cervical corpectomy with preserved posterior vertebral wall for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a randomized control clinical study. Spine 32:1482–1487
Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415
Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 166:23–28
Lad SP, Patil CG, Berta S et al (2009) National trends in spinal fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol 71:66–69
Montgomery DM, Brower RS (1992) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinical syndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am 23:487–493
Ebersold MJ, Pare MC, Quast LM (1995) Surgical treatment for cervical spondylitc myelopathy. J Neurosurg 82:745–751
Oh MC, Zhang HY, Park JY et al (2009) Two-level anterior cervical discectomy versus one-level corpectomy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 34:692–696
Hwang SL, Lee KS, Su YF et al (2007) Anterior corpectomy with iliac bone fusion or discectomy with interbody titanium cage fusion for multilevel cervical degenerated disc disease. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:565–570
An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM et al (1995) Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Spine 20:2211–2221
Bernard TN Jr, Whitecloud TS 3rd (1987) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy and myeloradiculopathy. Anterior decompression and stabilization with autogenous fibula strut graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:149–160
Fernyhough JC, White JI, LaRocca H (1991) Fusion rates in multilevel cervical spondylosis comparing allograft fibula with autograft fibula in 126 patients. Spine 16:S561–S564
Herkowitz HN (1989) The surgical management of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 239:94–108
Fessler RG, Steck JC, Giovanini MA (1998) Anterior cervical corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery 43:257–265
MacDonald RL, Fehlings MG, Tator CH et al (1997) Multilevel anterior cervical corpectomy and fibular allograft fusion for cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg 86:990–997
Vaccaro AR, Falatyn SP, Scuderi GJ et al (1998) Early failure of long segment anterior cervical plate fixation. J Spinal Disord 11:410–415
Sasso RC, Ruggiero RA Jr, Reilly TM et al (2003) Early reconstruciton failures after multilevel cervical corpectomy. Spine 28:140–142
Pavlov PW (2003) Eur Spine J 12:S188–S194
DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Vossel KA et al (2000) Anterior cervical plating reverses load transfer through multilevel strut-grafts. Spine 25:783–795
Acknowledgment
We thank Dr. Zhide Hu for statistical analyzing assistance.
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Xuhui Zhou has made equally contribution to writing this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, Q., Zhou, X., Wang, X. et al. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and corpectomy in patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 21, 474–481 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1961-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1961-9