Outcomes following laminoplasty or laminectomy and fusion in patients with myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A systematic review

Study Design Systematic review. Objective To compare laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy caused by OPLL. Methods A systematic review was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane database, and Google scholar of articles. Only comparative studies in humans were included. Studies involving cervical trauma/fracture, infection, and tumor were excluded. Results Of 157 citations initially analyzed, 4 studies ultimately met our inclusion criteria: one class of evidence (CoE) II prospective cohort study and three CoE III retrospective cohort studies. The prospective cohort study found no significant difference between laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion in the recovery rate from myelopathy. One CoE III retrospective cohort study reported a significantly higher recovery rate following laminoplasty. Another CoE III retrospective cohort study reported a significantly higher recovery rate in the laminectomy and fusion group. One CoE II prospective cohort study and one CoE III retrospective cohort study found no significant difference in pain improvement between patients treated with laminoplasty versus patients treated with laminectomy and fusion. All four studies reported a higher incidence of C5 palsy following laminectomy and fusion than laminoplasty. One CoE II prospective cohort and one CoE III retrospective cohort reported that there was no significant difference in axial neck pain between the two procedures. One CoE III retrospective cohort study suggested that there was no significant difference between groups in OPLL progression. Conclusion Data from four comparative studies was not sufficient to support the superiority of laminoplasty or laminectomy and fusion in treating cervical myelopathy caused by OPLL

Correlation and reliability of cervical sagittal alignment parameters between lateral cervical radiograph and lateral whole-body EOS stereoradiograph

STUDY DESIGN:  Retrospective analysis. OBJECTIVE:  To evaluate the correlation and reliability of cervical sagittal alignment parameters obtained from lateral cervical radiographs (XRs) compared with lateral whole-body stereoradiographs (SRs). METHODS:  We evaluated adults with cervical deformity using both lateral XRs and lateral SRs obtained within 1 week of each other between 2010 and 2014. XR and SR images were measured by two independent spine surgeons using the following sagittal alignment parameters: C2–C7 sagittal Cobb angle (SCA), C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C1–C7 translational distance (C1–7), T1 slope (T1-S), neck tilt (NT), and thoracic inlet angle (TIA). Pearson correlation and paired t test were used for statistical analysis, with intra- and interrater reliability analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS:  A total of 35 patients were included in the study. We found excellent intrarater reliability for all sagittal alignment parameters in both the XR and SR groups with ICC ranging from 0.799 to 0.994 for XR and 0.791 to 0.995 for SR. Interrater reliability was also excellent for all parameters except NT and TIA, which had fair reliability. We also found excellent correlations between XR and SR measurements for most sagittal alignment parameters; SCA, SVA, and C1–C7 had r > 0.90, and only NT had r < 0.70. There was a significant difference between groups, with SR having lower measurements compared with XR for both SVA (0.68 cm lower, p < 0.001) and C1–C7 (1.02 cm lower, p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups for SCA, T1-S, NT, and TIA. CONCLUSION:  Whole-body stereoradiography appears to be a viable alternative for measuring cervical sagittal alignment parameters compared with standard radiography. XR and SR demonstrated excellent correlation for most sagittal alignment parameters except NT. However, SR had significantly lower average SVA and C1–C7 measurements than XR. The lower radiation exposure using single SR has to be weighed against its higher cost compared with XR

Occipitocervical fixation: general considerations and surgical technique

To review and present details on the occipitocervical fixation (OCF) technique as well as considerations for planning the procedure. Methods: We present the surgical technique of OCF in a step-by-step didactic and practical manner with surgical tips and tricks, including C1 and C2 screw fixation techniques. Additionally, we discuss complications, the extension of fusion, types of OCF, and how to avoid common side effects associated with OCF. The complex and mobile anatomy of the craniocervical junction, when requiring fixation and fusion, warrants rigid instrumentation that can be achieve using a modern screw-plate-rod construct. Indications for OCF are craniocervical instability, and atlantoaxial instability when selective atlantoaxial fusion is not feasible. OCF generally involves occiput-C2 fusion. C1 fixation is generally unnecessary, since it increases the surgical time and is associated with the risk of vascular complications. Selective occiput-C2 fusion is recommended when there is no need for including the cervical subaxial region (eg, when stenosis or fractures coexist in the subaxial spine), and good fixation is achieved at C2. Most instrumentation systems now have occipital plates that are not pre-integrated to rods, making fixation much simpler. Surgical steps, from position to wound closure, are presented in detail, with pearls for practice and discussion of cervical alignment. OCF is a challenging procedure, with potential risk of severe adverse effects. Understanding the surgical indications, as well as the nuances of the surgical technique, is required to improve patient outcomes and avoid complications

Cervical scoliosis: clinical and radiographic outcomes

Study Design Retrospective study. Objective Cervical scoliosis is a rare condition that can arise from various etiologies. Few reports on the surgical management of cervical scoliosis exist. Our objective was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes following surgical management of cervical scoliosis. Methods We evaluated our cervical spine surgical database for patients with cervical scoliosis (Cobb angle > 10 degrees) from 2005 to 2010. Demographic data including age, gender, diagnoses, and primary versus revision surgery was collected. Surgical data including procedure (anterior versus posterior), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of surgery, length of hospitalization, and complications was recorded. Preoperative and postoperative Cobb angle measurements and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores were recorded. Results Cervical scoliosis was identified in 18 patients. We excluded 5, leaving 5 men and 8 women with an average age of 50.7 (median 52, range 25 to 65). The average follow-up was 40 months (median 36.5, range 5 to 87). An anterior-only approach was used in 6 cases (average 4 levels fused), 5 cases were posterior-only approach (average 8.7 levels fused), and 2 cases were combined anterior-posterior approach. The EBL was an average of 286 mL (median 150, range 50 to 900), the average surgical time was 266 minutes (median 239, range 136 to 508), and the average hospital stay was 2.7 days (median 2, range 1 to 7). Complications occurred in 7 patients, and 2 developed adjacent segment pathology. The average coronal Cobb angle preoperatively was 35.1 degrees (median 31, range 13 to 63) and corrected was 15.7 degrees (median 10.5, range 2 to 59) postoperatively (p < 0.005). The average NDI preoperatively was 24.9 (median 26, range 6 to 37) and was reduced to 17.8 (median 18, range 7 to 30) postoperatively (p < 0.02). Conclusion Surgical management of cervical scoliosis can result in deformity correction and improvement in patient outcomes. Higher rates of complications may be encountered