6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Does extending a posterior cervical fusion construct into the upper thoracic spine impact patient-reported outcomes as long as 2 years after surgery in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy?

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE

          In multilevel posterior cervical instrumented fusion, extension of fusion across the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) at T1 or T2 has been associated with decreased rates of reoperation and pseudarthrosis but with longer surgical time and increased blood loss. The impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. The primary objective was to determine whether extension of fusion through the CTJ influenced PROs at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the number of patients who reached the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the PROs, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, discharge disposition, adverse events (AEs), reoperation within 24 months of surgery, and patient satisfaction.

          METHODS

          This was a retrospective observational cohort study of prospectively collected multicenter data of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion of 4 levels or greater (between C2 and T2) between January 2015 and October 2020 and received 24 months of follow-up were included. PROs (scores on the Neck Disability Index [NDI], EQ-5D, physical component summary and mental component summary of SF-12, and numeric rating scale for arm and neck pain) and mJOA scores were compared using ANCOVA and adjusted for baseline differences. Patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and surgical details were abstracted. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for these outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, AEs, reoperation, discharge disposition, length of stay, and satisfaction was compared by using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the independent-samples t-test for continuous variables.

          RESULTS

          A total of 198 patients were included in this study (101 patients with fusion not crossing the CTJ and 97 with fusion crossing the CTJ). Patients with a construct extending through the CTJ were more likely to be female and have worse baseline NDI scores (p > 0.05). When adjusted for baseline differences, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the PROs and mJOA scores at 3, 12, and 24 months. Surgical duration was longer (p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss was greater in the group with fusion extending to the upper thoracic spine (p = 0.013). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of AEs (p > 0.05). Fusion with a construct crossing the CTJ was associated with reoperation (p = 0.04). Satisfaction with surgery was not significantly different between groups. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for the PROs were not statistically different at any time point.

          CONCLUSIONS

          There were no statistically significant differences in PROs between patients with a posterior construct extending to the upper thoracic spine and those without such extension for as long as 24 months after surgery. The AE profiles were not significantly different, but longer surgical time and increased blood loss were associated with constructs extending across the CTJ.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion.

          The Neck Disability Index (NDI), the short form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS), and pain scales for arm and neck pain are increasingly used to evaluate treatment effectiveness after cervical spine surgery. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a threshold of improvement that is clinically relevant to the patient. However, the true goal is to provide the patient with a substantial clinical benefit (SCB). This study determines the MCID and SCB using common anchor-based methods for NDI, PCS, and pain scales for arm and neck pain in patients undergoing cervical spine fusion for degenerative disorders. The study setting is a longitudinal cohort in a multisurgeon spine specialty clinic. The sample comprises 505 patients who underwent a cervical fusion for degenerative spine conditions and who have prospectively collected outcome scores with a minimum 1-year follow-up. The outcome measures of the study were NDI, SF-36, and numeric rating scales for arm and neck pain. The MCID and SCB values for NDI, PCS, and pain scales for arm and neck pain were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the Health Transition Item of the SF-36 as an anchor. The Health Transition Item asks a patient "Compared to one year ago, how would you rate your health in general now?" with answers ranging from "Much Better," "Somewhat Better," "About the Same," "Somewhat Worse," to "Much Worse." An ROC curve was constructed for each measure. The ROC curve-derived MCID was the change score with equal sensitivity and specificity to distinguish the "Somewhat Better" from the "About the Same" patients. The ROC curve-derived SCB was the change score with equal sensitivity and specificity to distinguish the "Much Better" from the "Somewhat Better" patients. Distribution-based methods including the standard error of the mean and the minimum detectable change were also used to calculate MCID. The calculated MCID is 7.5 for the NDI, 4.1 for SF-36 PCS, and 2.5 for arm and neck pain. The calculated SCB is 9.5 for the NDI, 6.5 for SF-36 PCS, and 3.5 for arm and neck pain. Patients with an eight-point decrease in NDI, a 4.1-point increase in PCS, and a three-point decrease in arm or neck pain can detect a minimally clinically important change. Patients with a 10-point decrease in NDI, a 6.5-point increase in PCS, and a four-point decrease in arm or neck pain can detect an SCB after cervical spine fusion. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients.

            Prospective, multicenter international cohort.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery.

              Positive spinal regional and global sagittal malalignment has been repeatedly shown to correlate with pain and disability in thoracolumbar fusion.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
                Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
                1547-5654
                October 01 2022
                October 01 2022
                : 37
                : 4
                : 547-555
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Combined Neurosurgical and Orthopedic Spine Program, Department of Orthopedics Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia;
                [2 ]Department of Orthopedics Surgery, London Health Science Centre, Western University, London, Ontario;
                [3 ]Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network, Markdale, Ontario;
                [4 ]Divisions of Orthopaedic Surgery and Neurosurgery, University of Toronto, Ontario;
                [5 ]Combined Neurosurgical and Orthopedic Spine Program, University of Calgary, Alberta;
                [6 ]Centre de Recherche CHU de Quebec, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec;
                [7 ]Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Ontario;
                [8 ]Department of Orthopedics Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec;
                [9 ]Department of Surgery, Section of Orthopedics and Neurosurgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba;
                [10 ]Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta;
                [11 ]Canada East Spine Centre, Division of Neurosurgery, Zone 2, Horizon Health Network, Saint John, New Brunswick;
                [12 ]Canada East Spine Centre, Saint John Orthopedics, Dalhousie Medicine New Brunswick, Saint John Campus, Saint John, New Brunswick;
                [13 ]Department of Orthopedics Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario; and
                [14 ]Division of Neurosurgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
                Article
                10.3171/2022.3.SPINE211529
                fe86ff9a-4fe7-4ac4-b709-0815f0ef0c43
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article