Bridging the cervicothoracic junction during posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of multilevel cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a retrospective case series

Factors Associated With Repeat Surgery in Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligaments: Minimum 8-year Follow-up Study

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify the factors leading to repeat surgery in patients with cervical ossification of the longitudinal ligament (OPLL) during a minimal 8-year follow-up after the initial surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The long-term effects of cervical OPLL are well known, but it's not always clear how many patients need to have surgery again because their neurological symptoms get worse.

METHODS

This study is included 117 patients who underwent surgery for cervical OPLL and had a follow-up of at least 8 years. OPLL type, surgical extent, surgical method, and sagittal radiological parameters were measured, and OPLL characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average age of patients at the time of surgery was 53.2 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 78:39. The median follow-up duration was 122 months (96-170 mo). Out of the total, 20 cases (17.1%) necessitated repeat surgery, among which 8 cases required surgery at the same site as the initial operation. The highest rate of repeat surgery was observed in patients who underwent total laminectomy without fusion (TL), where 6 out of 21 patients (29%) needed a second surgery, and 5 of these (23%) involved the same surgical site. Patients who underwent repeat surgery at the same site exhibited a greater range of motion (ROM) one year postsurgery (16.4 ± 8.5° vs. 23.1 ± 12.7°, P =0.041). In addition, the ROM at 1 year was higher in patients who underwent TL compared with those who had laminoplasty. Furthermore, the recurrence rate for hill-shape OPLL was higher at 30.8% compared to 10% for plateau-shape OPLL ( P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Larger cervical ROM 1 year after surgery is related to repeat surgery at the same level as previous surgery, especially in laminectomy without fusion surgery.

Is It Necessary to Cross the Cervicothoracic Junction in Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCF) is a common procedure for treating patients with multilevel degenerative cervical spine disease. The selection of lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) relative to the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of PCF construct terminating at the lower cervical spine and crossing the CTJ.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library database. Complications, rate of reoperation, surgical data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and radiographic outcomes were compared between PCF construct terminating at or above C7 (cervical group) and at or below T1 (thoracic group) in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical spine disease. A subgroup analysis based on surgical techniques and indications was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen retrospective cohort studies comprising 2071 patients (1163 in the cervical group and 908 in the thoracic group) were included. The cervical group was associated with a lower incidence of wound-related complications (RR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.022; 831 patients in cervical group vs. 692 patients in thoracic group), a lower reoperation rate for wound-related complications (RR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96, p = 0.034; 768 vs. 624 patients), and less neck pain at the final follow-up (WMD, -0.58; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.23, p = 0.001; 327 vs. 268 patients). However the cervical group also developed a higher incidence of overall adjacent segment disease (ASD, including distal ASD and proximal ASD) (RR, 1.87; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.76, p = 0.001; 1079 vs. 860 patients), distal ASD (RR, 2.18; 95% CI 1.36 to 3.51, p = 0.001; 642 vs. 555 patients), overall hardware failure (including hardware failure of LIV and hardware failure occurring at other instrumented vertebra) (RR, 1.48; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.15, p = 0.040; 614 vs. 451 patients), and hardware failure of LIV (RR, 1.89; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.95, p = 0.005; 380 vs. 339 patients). The operating time was reasonably shorter (WMD, -43.47; 95% CI -59.42 to -27.52, p < 0.001; 611 vs. 570 patients) and the estimated blood loss was lower (WMD, -143.77; 95% CI -185.90 to -101.63, p < 0.001; 721 vs. 740 patients) when the PCF construct did not cross the CTJ.

CONCLUSIONS

PCF construct crossing the CTJ was associated with a lower incidence of ASD and hardware failure but a higher incidence of wound-related complications and a small increase in qualitative neck pain, without difference in neck disability on the NDI. Based on the subgroup analysis for surgical techniques and indications, prophylactic crossing of the CTJ should be considered for patients with concurrent instability, ossification, deformity, or a combination of anterior approach surgeries as well. However, long-term follow-up outcomes and patient selection-related factors such as bone quality, frailty, and nutrition status should be addressed in further studies.