多节段脊髓型颈椎病两种减压融合术的比较

[目的]比较前路颈椎体切除融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)联合前路颈椎间盘切除融合(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)与多节段单纯ACDF治疗多节段脊髓型颈病(cervical spondyloti...     

两种前路术式治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的近期随访研究

[目的]通过分析比较对治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的两种前路术式进行探讨研究。[方法]回顾性分析2008年1月²011年8月手术治疗的65例三节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料,根据手术方式不同分为2组:前路椎间盘切除减压融合术组(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)(A组)、前路椎体切除减压融合术组(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)(B组),其中A组男性20例,女性7例;平均年龄(50.43±6.50)岁;B组男性25例,女性13例;平均年龄(52.31±7.32)岁;评估2种术式围手术期并发症的发生率、手术时间、手术出血量及神经功能改善率、生理弧度改善情况。[结果]随访时间132011年8月手术治疗的65例三节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料,根据手术方式不同分为2组:前路椎间盘切除减压融合术组(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)(A组)、前路椎体切除减压融合术组(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)(B组),其中A组男性20例,女性7例;平均年龄(50.43±6.50)岁;B组男性25例,女性13例;平均年龄(52.31±7.32)岁;评估2种术式围手术期并发症的发生率、手术时间、手术出血量及神经功能改善率、生理弧度改善情况。[结果]随访时间13³4个月,平均20个月。共有7例在手术后出现多种并发症,包括植骨未融合2例(B组)(5.26%),B组植骨不愈合发生率显著高于A组(P<0.05);声音嘶哑1例,其中B组1例(2.63%);吞咽困难2例,其中A组1例(3.70%),B组1例(2.63%);脑脊液漏1例(A组);切口感染1例(B组)。A组患者并发症发生率为7.40%,B组为13.15%,B组患者术后并发症的发生率显著高于A组(P<0.05)。两组手术时间分别为(107.9±32.4)min、(129±23)min,两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);神经功能平均改善率分别为55.3%和56.9%,两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组手术前颈椎融合节段Cobb角为(7.78±1.15)°,末次随访时Cobb角为(15.82±3.27)°;B组手术前颈椎融合节段Cobb角为(8.36±2.57)°,末次随访时Cobb角为(12.69±2.96)°;术后颈椎生理曲度均得到明显改善,但A组明显优于B组,两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。[结论]两种手术方法治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的疗效,但ACDF具有并发症发生率低、出血量少、手术时间短等优点。     

多节段脊髓型颈椎病的手术治疗:三种手术方法的初期临床疗效比较

[目的]探讨分析颈前路椎间盘切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)或颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)、颈后路椎管扩大成形术(posterior cervical laminoplasty,PCL)以及前后路联合手术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病(multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy,MCSM)的初期临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2009年1月~2012年1月在本院接受手术治疗,并完成至少2年随访的82例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者。将37例行ACDF或ACCF的患者归入A组,将32例行PCL的患者纳入B组,其余13例行ACDF联合PCL的患者列为C组。比较分析A、B、C三组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率、日本矫形外科学会评分(Japan Orthopaedic Association,JOA)、JOA改善优良率、颈椎功能残障指数(neck disability index,NDI)和颈椎活动度(rang of motion,ROM)。[结果]截至末次随访时,A、B、C三组患者均获得良好的手术疗效。A组和B组的手术时间、术中出血量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),均显著少于C组(P0.05);三组患者的术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。所有患者术后JOA评分、NDI及ROM均较术前明显改善(P0.05),术后6个月随访时,A组的NDI明显优于B组和C组(P0.05),其余各项指标在三组间无差异(P0.05)。截至术后2年,B组的NDI劣于A组(P0.05),而ROM则优于A组和C组(P0.05),其余指标无统计学差异(P0.05)。[结论]此三种手术方法对治疗CSM均可获得良好的初期临床效果,前路手术在颈椎功能改善方面优于后路手术,而后路手术在颈椎活动度的丧失方面要优于前路手术和前后路联合手术。     

两种前路手术治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)和颈前路椎体次全切减压融合术(ACCF)治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法将43例双节段脊髓型颈椎病患者按治疗方法分为两组,ACDF组23例,ACCF组20例。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、并发症发生率、术后JOA评分、植骨融合率和颈椎生理曲度改善情况。结果患者均获得随访,时间15~46个月。手术时间ACDF组为(106±23)min,ACCF组为(142±35)min;术中出血量ACDF组为(121±76)ml,ACCF组为(208±125)ml;两组两项比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组住院时间、并发症发生率、植骨融合率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时JOA评分ACDF组从术前(10.32±1.47)分增加到(14.55±1.65)分,改善率62.82%±12.58%;ACCF组从术前(10.21±1.53)分增加到(14.39±1.76)分,改善率59.91%±13.28%;两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后颈椎生理曲度均得到明显改善,但ACDF组优于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACDF和ACCF治疗双节段脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的临床疗效,ACDF具有手术时间短、出血少、创伤小等优点。     

ACDF与ACCF治疗颈椎病术后内植物沉降的观察

目的 比较颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合内固定术(anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)和颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合内固定术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)治疗相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病时的内植物沉降情况.方法 回顾性分析2016年1月～2017年3月收治的43例相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病患者,常规术后随访时间为1年.随访丢失3例,最后纳入统计:ACDF组20例,ACCF组20例.比较2组融合节段椎体高度、融合节段Cobb角.结果 两组术前JOA、NDI评分与术后比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后1年随访时的融合节段高度及Cobb角丢失度,ACDF组为(1.7±1.0)mm和(1.60±0.6)°,ACCF组为(2.8±1.3)mm;(2.44±1.2)°,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 ACDF与ACCF治疗脊髓型颈椎病均能获得较好的效果,但ACDF组的内植物沉降较ACCF组轻.     

ACDF联合ACCF术中运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病

目的探讨颈前路间盘切除减压融合术(Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF)联合颈前路椎体次全切除减压融合术(Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)中运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2015-04—2017-06采用ACDF联合ACCF治疗的46例3节段脊髓型颈椎病,术中联合运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体,比较术前与末次随访时的JOA评分、颈椎整体曲度、融合节段Cobb角、融合节段前柱高度。结果 46例均顺利完成手术并获得完整随访,随访时间36～48个月,平均42.1个月。46例切口均一期愈合,术后12个月均获得植骨融合。2例出现一过性吞咽困难,1例出现脑脊液漏,1例出现n-HA/PA66支撑体下沉,对症治疗后均治愈。末次随访时JOA评分较术前高,颈椎整体曲度、融合节段Cobb角、融合节段前柱高度较术前大,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访时按JOA评分改善率评价疗效:优17例,良23例,可6例,优良率86.96%。结论 ACDF联合ACCF术中运用Solis融合器、颈前路钛板与n-HA/PA66支撑体治疗3节段脊髓型颈椎病可有效恢复颈椎高度,改善并维持颈椎曲度,减少并发症的发生率。     

相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病前路不同术式的比较

[目的]比较前路颈椎体次全切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)和前路颈椎间盘切除植骨融合术(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)两种术式在相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病手术治疗中的应用.[方法]对2006年6月～ 2010年3月相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病手术治疗患者的临床资料和影像学资料进行回顾性研究,共67例符合研究要求,其中ACCF 36例,ACDF 31例.评估、比较两组的围手术期指标(住院日、出血量、手术时间、取骨处并发症以及颈部并发症)、临床疗效指标(脊髓神经功能JOA评分、颈部及上肢疼痛VAS评分)及影像学指标(颈椎矢状曲度情况、颈椎前凸角度、颈椎活动度、融合节段活动度、融合节段前后缘高度及融合率).[结果]平均随访时间ACCF (28.96±13.21)个月,ACDF (26.81±11.02)个月.两组间比较时,手术时间及术中出血量ACCF比ACDF多,并发症发生率更高,有显著性差异,而术后随访时颈椎前凸角度以及融合节段高度ACCF比ACDF低,有显著性差异,其他参数无显著性差异.但组内比较时,术后即刻与术前、术后6周时与术后即刻有显著性差异,末次随访时与术后6周时ACCF融合节段后缘高度相比有显著性差异,其余指标及ACDF组内无显著性差异.[结论] ACCF、ACDF均是治疗相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病的有效术式,但ACDF在手术时间、出血量、并发症发生率以及一些影像学指标上有显著性优势,具体的手术方式选择应根据脊髓受压迫需要减压的部位而定.     

两种颈前路减压融合术治疗两节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的:探讨颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)与颈前路椎体次全切减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)治疗相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2016年1月至2017年12月收治的相邻两节段脊髓型颈椎病37例患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,男15例,女22例,年龄43～69岁,平均54.6岁。根据手术方法的不同分为ACDF治疗组(A组,17例)和ACCF治疗组(B组,20例)。记录两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量,比较两组患者术前及术后1、12个月颈椎融合节段Cobb角、颈椎曲度,采用日本矫形外科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分评价临床疗效,并观察两组术后并发症情况。结果:所有患者获得随访,时间12～24个月,平均18.5个月。手术时间、术中出血量A组分别为(106.3±22.6) min、(52.2±26.4) ml,B组分别为(115.6±16.8) min、(61.7±20.7) ml,手术时间组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05),B组术中出血量大于A组(P0.05)。术前及术后1、12个月颈椎曲度和颈椎融合节段Cobb角A组分别为(11.28±1.40)°、(17.56±1.90)°、(16.64±1.80)°和(4.93±4.20)°、(9.44±2.60)°、(9.25±2.80)°,B组分别为(10.59±1.20)°、(16.26±2.10)°、(15.76±2.50)°和(4.75±3.90)°、(7.98±2.10)°、(7.79±3.00)°。两组患者术后颈椎融合节段Cobb角、颈椎曲度均较术前明显改善,且A组较B组恢复更明显(P0.05)。术前及术后1、12个月JOA评分A组分别为9.46±1.70、11.56±1.40、14.86±1.20,B组分别为9.11±1.50、11.40±1.30、15.12±1.60。两组患者术后JOA评分较术前均明显改善(P0.05),组间同时间段比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。末次随访A组出现吞咽梗阻感2例,cage移位1例,未发生钛板螺钉松动;B组出现吞咽梗阻感4例,钛网沉降2例,钛板螺钉松动1例。结论:两种颈前路减压融合术治疗两节段脊髓型颈椎病,均能有效减压,改善病椎Cobb角及颈椎生理曲度。ACDF术式可直接去除椎间水平的致压物,椎体破坏小,颈椎生理曲度恢复良好;ACCF术式椎体次全切除,操作空间大,易于去除椎体后缘骨赘及钙化的后纵韧带。长期随访显示,ACDF与ACCF术式效果良好,技术成熟,疗效接近。     

三种颈前路减压术式治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的并发症比较

目的:分析比较不同颈前路减压术式治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病术后并发症的差异。方法:回顾性分析2006年1月～2011年8月手术治疗的327例三节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料,根据手术方式不同分为三组:前路椎间盘切除减压融合术(anterior cervical discectomy with fusion,ACDF)(A组)、前路椎体切除减压融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion,ACCF)(B组)和ACDF+ACCF"混合式"减压术(C组),其中A组男性69例,女性55例,平均年龄53.48±8.50岁;B组男性51例,女性43例,平均年龄54.36±7.82岁;C组男性61例,女性48例,平均年龄53.68±7.80岁,组间比较无统计学差异。对三种不同手术方式并发症情况进行比较。结果:平均随访时间3.5年(1.5～5年)。共有69例在手术后出现多种并发症,包括植骨未融合11例,其中C组3例(2.75%),B组8例(8.51%),B组植骨不愈合发生率显著高于A组和C组(P<0.05);声音嘶哑12例,其中A组5例(4.03%),B组3例(3.19%),C组4例(3.67%);吞咽困难26例,其中A组11例(8.87%),B组7例(7.45%),C组8例(7.34%);C5神经根麻痹12例,其中A组2例(1.61%),B组5例(5.32%),C组5例(4.59%);脑脊液漏5例,其中A组3例,C组2例;切口感染3例,其中B组2例,C组1例。A组患者并发症发生率为16.94%,B组为26.60%,C组为21.10%,B组患者术后并发症的发生率显著高于其余两组(P<0.05)。结论:多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者手术治疗中,ACDF的并发症发生率最低,ACCF术式应慎用,其并发症的发生率较高。     

脊髓型颈椎病前路减压两种固定融合方法比较

[目的]比较零切迹自稳型颈椎融合器（zero notch self stabilizing cervical fusion cage, ROI-C）与钛板-融合器（platecage, PC）颈椎前路减压融合术（anterior cervical decompression and fusion, ACDF）治疗脊髓型颈椎病（cervical spondylotic myelopathy, CSM）的临床效果。[方法] 2021年1月—2022年7月就诊于本院的CSM患者112例,抽签法随机分为两组,其中56例采用ROI-C的ACDF,另外56例采用PC内固定。比较两组围手术期、随访及影像学资料。[结果] ROI-C组手术时间[(105.8±24.6) min vs (128.2±30.5) min, P<0.001]、术中出血量[(26.0±4.3) ml vs (31.0±5.8) ml, P<0.001]、术后下地行走时间[(1.3±0.4)d vs (1.6±0.5) d, P<0.001]及早期并发症发生率（7.1%vs 26.8%, P=0.006）均显著...     

颈椎前路减压分段融合术和后路椎管扩大成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的病例对照研究

目的 :比较颈椎前路减压分段融合术和后路椎管扩大成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:对2009年7月至2012年6月收治的56例多节段脊髓型颈椎病病例进行回顾性分析,男32例,女24例;年龄42~79岁,平均(56.9±12.8)岁,病程2个月~16年,平均(10.6±3.2)年。所有患者术前经影像学检查显示有多节段颈椎间盘突出,并具有脊髓型颈椎病的临床表现。其中34例采用颈椎前路减压分段融合术(前路组),22例采用后路椎管扩大成形术(后路组)。通过影像学资料对两组患者手术前后的病变节段前柱高度和颈椎前曲度进行比较,并采用JOA评分评价手术效果。结果:两组患者无神经血管并发症发生,并获得24~36个月的随访(平均28.6个月)。前路组,术后2周时颈椎病变节段前柱高度较术前明显增高(P0.05),颈椎前曲度较术前明显降低(P0.05)。后路组,术后2周及末次随访时,病变节段前柱高度和颈椎前曲度较术前差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组间在术后2周及末次随访时颈椎前曲度差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后两组JOA评分均出现了明显恢复,术后3个月及末次随访时,前路组明显高于后路组(P0.05),且JOA评分改善率前路组也优于后路组(P0.05)。结论:这种分段式前路融合手术可以有效地恢复颈椎前柱高度,并且与颈椎后路椎管扩大成形术相比,可以显著地改善脊髓功能,是治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的有效方案。     

颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术和后路单开门椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的早期并发症对比

目的对比颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和后路单开门椎板成形术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)的早期并发症。方法 2010年1月—2014年12月收治多节段CSM患者236例,111例采用ACDF治疗(前路组)、125例采用颈椎后路单开门椎板成形术治疗(后路组)。记录患者术前和末次随访时颈椎曲度、日本骨科学会(JOA)评分以及术后3个月内并发症发生情况。结果末次随访时前路组颈椎曲度(14.8°±4.1°)优于后路组(9.5°±2.8°),差异有统计学意义(P 0.05);前路组末次随访时JOA评分和JOA评分改善率[(14.6±1.2)分、(75.6±3.5)%]均优于后路组[(13.2±2.0)分、(62.7±5.6)%],差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。14例患者术后早期发生并发症,发生率为5.93%,其中前路组5例(4.50%,5/111),后路组9例(7.20%,9/125)。最常见的并发症为喉上/喉返神经损伤(5例,前路组),最严重的并发症为脊髓损伤(3例,后路组),其余为C5神经根麻痹(2例)、脑脊液漏(2例)、切口愈合不良(1例)、切口血肿(1例),均为后路组病例。无食管、气管瘘及死亡患者。结论 ACDF和后路单开门椎板成形术治疗多节段CSM均可获得满意的临床疗效,ACDF能获得更好的颈椎曲度和神经功能,且并发症发生率较低。     

3种前路手术治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效比较

目的比较分析颈前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)、颈前路椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)和人工颈椎间盘置换术(CADR)治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效。方法回顾性分析自2004-01—2012-01行ACDF、ACCF和CADR手术治疗的79例单节段脊髓型颈椎病。ACDF组44例,ACCF组22例,CADR组13例。比较3组手术时间、术中出血量,术后6、60个月VAS评分、JOA评分、NDI指数、SF-12评分及颈椎曲度。结果 79例均获得61~88(69.8±12.7)个月随访。ACDF组与ACCF组植骨融合时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后6个月时,ACCF组JOA评分均高于ACDF组及CADR组,ACDF组与ACCF组颈椎曲度优于CADR组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组VAS评分、NDI指数和SF-12评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后60个月时,ACDF组与CADR组VAS评分、NDI指数低于ACCF组,而SF-12评分高于ACCF组;ACDF组颈椎曲度优于ACCF组与CADR组,且CADR组优于ACCF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而3组JOA评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ACCF在短期内神经功能恢复优于ACDF和CADR,但在随访中期ACCF在症状缓解、生活质量改善及颈椎曲度的维持方面却差于ACDF和CADR。     

Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study

Purpose

We evaluated radiologic and clinical outcomes to compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods

A total of 40 patients who underwent ACDF or ACCF for multilevel CSM were divided into two groups. Group A (n = 25) underwent ACDF and group B (n = 15) ACCF. Clinical outcomes (JOA and VAS scores), perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay, blood loss, operation time), radiological parameters (fusion rate, segmental height, cervical lordosis), and complications were compared.

Results

Both group A and group B demonstrated significant increases in JOA scores and significant decreases in VAS. Patients who underwent ACDF experienced significantly shorter hospital stays (p = 0.031), less blood loss (p = 0.001), and shorter operation times (p = 0.024). Both groups showed significant increases in postoperative cervical lordosis and achieved satisfactory fusion rates (88.0 and 93.3 %, respectively). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications among the groups.

Conclusions

Both ACDF and ACCF provide satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rates for multilevel CSM. However, multilevel ACDF is associated with better radiologic parameters, shorter hospital stays, less blood loss, and shorter operative times.     

单节段前路椎体次全切钛网植骨融合术后颈椎三维活动度的临床观察

目的:研究脊髓型颈椎病患者接受单节段前路椎体次全切钛网植骨融合术(anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion,ACCF)术后颈椎三维活动度的变化规律。方法 :对2015年2月至2016年4月期间收治的23例脊髓型颈椎病患者进行回顾性研究,其中男11例,女12例,平均年龄(54.6±13.3)岁。患者术前经问诊、查体及影像学检查明确诊断为脊髓型颈椎病,均行单节段ACCF手术进行治疗。通过三维颈椎活动度测量仪对患者手术前后颈椎三维活动度进行比较,并采用JOA评分和VAS评分评价手术效果。结果:入组患者平均随访时间为(9.4±1.6)个月。术后3个月颈椎活动度与术前比较,除左旋转外,其他方向均明显低于术前(P0.05)。术后6个月颈椎活动度与术前比较,6个方向上的活动度与术前差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后9个月颈椎活动度与术前比较,右侧屈、左旋转方向上的活动度明显高于术前(P0.05)。术后6个月颈椎活动度与术后3个月比较,后伸方向活动度明显高于术后3个月(P0.05)。术后9个月颈椎活动度与术后6个月比较,后伸、右侧屈、左侧屈及左旋转方向上的活动度明显高于术后6个月(P0.05)。术后各时间点JOA评分均明显高于术前(P0.05)。术后各时间点VAS评分均明显低于术前(P0.05)。结论:单节段ACCF术后颈椎三维活动度的变化表明,术后短期内活动度下降,之后活动度增加并优于术前水平,同时神经功能得到显著改善。但术后近期和远期活动度变化以及多节段ACCF术后活动度变化有待进一步研究。     

Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis

The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of three different anterior approaches for three-level cervical spondylosis. The records of 120 patients who underwent anterior approaches because of three-level cervical spondylosis between 2006 and 2008 were reviewed. Based on the type of surgery, the patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 was three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Group 2 anterior cervical hybrid decompression and fusion (ACHDF, combination of ACDF and ACCF); and Group 3 two-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The clinical outcomes including blood loss, operation time, complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, C2–C7 angle, segmental angle, and fusion rate were compared. There were no significant differences in JOA improvement and fusion rate among three groups. However, in terms of segmental angle and C2–C7 angle improvement, Group 2 was superior to Group 3 and inferior to Group 1 (all P < 0.01). Group 2 was less in operation time than Group 3 (P < 0.01) and more than Group 1 (P < 0.01). Group 3 had more blood loss than Group 1 and Group 2 (all P < 0.01) and had higher complication rate than Group 1 (P < 0.05). No significant differences in blood loss and complication rate were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 (P > 0.05). ACDF was superior in most outcomes to ACCF and ACHDF. If the compressive pathology could be resolved by discectomy, ACDF should be the treatment of choice. ACHDF was an ideal alternative procedure to ACDF if retro-vertebral pathology existed. ACCF was the last choice considered.     

Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy fusion and cervical corpectomy fusion using titanium cages for reconstruction: analysis of outcome and long-term follow-up

Retrospective comparative study of 80 consecutive patients treated with either anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF) or anterior cervical corpectomy fusion (ACCF) for multi-level cervical spondylosis. To compare clinical outcome, fusion rates, and complications of anterior cervical reconstruction of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF performed using titanium mesh cages (TMCs) filled with autograft and anterior cervical plates (ACPs). Reconstruction of the cervical spine after discectomy or corpectomy with titanium cages filled with autograft has become an acceptable alternative to both allograft and autograft; however, there is no data comparing the outcome of multi-level ACDF and single-/multi-level ACCF using this reconstruction. We evaluated 80 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis at our institution from 1998 to 2001. In this series, 42 patients underwent multi-level ACDF (Group 1) and 38 patients underwent ACCF (Group 2). Interbody TMCs and local autograft bone with ACPs were used in both procedures. Medical records were reviewed to assess outcome. Clinical outcome was measured by Odom’s criteria. Operative time and blood loss were noted. Radiographs were obtained at 6 and 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (if necessary). Early hardware failures and pseudarthroses were noted. Cervical sagittal curvature was measured by Ishihara’s index at 1 year. Group 1 had a mean age 46.2 years (range 35–60 years). Group 2 had a mean age 50.1 years (range 35–70 years).The operative time was significantly lower (P < 0.001) and blood loss significantly higher (P < 0.001) in Group 2 than in Group 1. At a minimum of 1 year follow up, patients in both groups had equivalent improvement in their clinical symptoms. The fusion rates for Group 1 were 97.6 and 92.1% for Group 2. The rates of early hardware failure were higher in Group 2 (2.6%) than in Group 1 (0%). The fusion rates for Group 1 were not significantly higher than Group 2 (P > 0.28). There was one patient in Group 1 and 2 patients in Group 2 with pseudarthroses. Complication rates in Group 2 were not significantly higher (P > 0.341). Cervical lordosis was well-maintained (80%) in both groups. Both multi-level ACDF and ACCF with anterior cervical reconstruction using TMC filled with autograft and ACP for treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis have high fusion rates and good clinical outcome. However, there is a higher rate of early hardware failure and pseudarthroses after ACCF than ACDF. Hence, in the absence of specific pathology requiring removal of vertebral body, multi-level ACDF using interbody cages and autologous bone graft could result in lower morbidity.     

两种颈椎前路减压融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效分析

[目的]回顾性分析比较椎间盘切除减压融合术(ACDF)和椎体次全切除减压融合术(ACCF)在治疗相邻两个节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及影像学数据.[方法]2005年4月～2007年8月,采用ACDF和ACCF治疗相邻两个节段脊髓型颈椎病156例.临床疗效采用日本骨科学会评分系统(JOA评分)对术前、末次随访的临床疗效进行评价.比较两组患者I临床疗效及手术时间、住院大数、术中失血量、颈椎活动度、颈椎曲度及节段性高度.[结果]两组的临床改善优良率无显著性差异(P＞0.05),ACDF组与ACCF组术中平均出血量及手术时间有显著性差异(P＜0.01),ACCF较ACDF增加,而ACCF组术后的节段性高度及颈椎前凸角较ACDF组明显降低(P＜0.01).[结论]ACDF与ACCF均能达到良好的手术疗效,然而ACDF在减少术中出血量、手术时间,改善和维持术后颈椎前凸角度及节段性高度较ACCF作用明显,但ACDF要求技术较高,有较长的学习曲线.     

A comparative study for the usage of Fidji cervical cages after multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

BackgroundPostoperative dysphagia is one major concern in the treatment for patients with cervical spine spondylosis by using anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with plating and cage system.PurposeTo evaluate the influence of two types of surgery for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) on postoperative dysphagia, namely ACDF with cage alone (ACDF-CA) using Fidji cervical cages and ACDF with cage and plate fixation (ACDF-CP).MethodsA retrospective study was performed in 62 consecutive patients with multilevel CSM, including 32 underwent ACDF-CA (group A) and 30 underwent ACDF-CP (group B). All enrolled patients were followed up at 48 h, 2 months and 6 months postoperatively, when the dysphagia rate, Swallowing-Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL) score and the thickness of prevertebral soft tissue were recorded.ResultsAt 48 h and 2 months, the dysphagia rate and thickness of prevertebral soft tissue were both significantly lower in group A than in group B, while the SWAL-QOL score of group A was significantly higher than that of group B. No significant difference was observed at 6 months.ConclusionFidji cervical cages could relieve postoperative dysphagia in the treatment of multilevel CSM with ACDF, especially at the first several months postoperatively.