Safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for the treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries, a single center comparative matched analysis.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Aman Singh, Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö, Simon Blixt, Vasilios Stenimahitis, Gunnar Nilsson, Paul Gerdhem, Erik Edström, Adrian Elmi-Terander
{"title":"Safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for the treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries, a single center comparative matched analysis.","authors":"Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Aman Singh, Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö, Simon Blixt, Vasilios Stenimahitis, Gunnar Nilsson, Paul Gerdhem, Erik Edström, Adrian Elmi-Terander","doi":"10.1007/s00701-024-06172-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF) are both common surgical procedures in the management of pathologies of the subaxial cervical spine. While recent reviews have demonstrated ACCF to provide better decompression results compared to ACDF, the procedure has been associated with increased surgical risks. Nonetheless, the use of ACCF in a traumatic context has been poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of ACCF as compared to the more commonly performed ACDF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients undergoing ACCF or ACDF for subaxial cervical spine injuries spanning over 2 disc-spaces and 3 vertebral-levels, between 2006 and 2018, at the study center, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were matched based on age and preoperative ASIA score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, 60 patients were included in the matched analysis, where 30 underwent ACDF and ACCF, respectively. Vertebral body injury was significantly more common in the ACCF group (p = 0.002), while traumatic disc rupture was more frequent in the ACDF group (p = 0.032). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of surgical complications, including implant failure, wound infection, dysphagia, CSF leakage between the groups (p ≥ 0.05). The rates of revision surgeries (p > 0.999), mortality (p = 0.222), and long-term ASIA scores (p = 0.081) were also similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results of both unmatched and matched analyses indicate that ACCF has comparable outcomes and no additional risks compared to ACDF. It is thus a safe approach and should be considered for patients with extensive anterior column injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":7370,"journal":{"name":"Acta Neurochirurgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11222236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Neurochirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-024-06172-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF) are both common surgical procedures in the management of pathologies of the subaxial cervical spine. While recent reviews have demonstrated ACCF to provide better decompression results compared to ACDF, the procedure has been associated with increased surgical risks. Nonetheless, the use of ACCF in a traumatic context has been poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of ACCF as compared to the more commonly performed ACDF.

Methods: All patients undergoing ACCF or ACDF for subaxial cervical spine injuries spanning over 2 disc-spaces and 3 vertebral-levels, between 2006 and 2018, at the study center, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were matched based on age and preoperative ASIA score.

Results: After matching, 60 patients were included in the matched analysis, where 30 underwent ACDF and ACCF, respectively. Vertebral body injury was significantly more common in the ACCF group (p = 0.002), while traumatic disc rupture was more frequent in the ACDF group (p = 0.032). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of surgical complications, including implant failure, wound infection, dysphagia, CSF leakage between the groups (p ≥ 0.05). The rates of revision surgeries (p > 0.999), mortality (p = 0.222), and long-term ASIA scores (p = 0.081) were also similar.

Conclusion: Results of both unmatched and matched analyses indicate that ACCF has comparable outcomes and no additional risks compared to ACDF. It is thus a safe approach and should be considered for patients with extensive anterior column injury.

Abstract Image

颈椎前路椎体切除术和融合术(ACCF)治疗颈椎轴下损伤的安全性,单中心对比匹配分析。
导言:颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACCF)都是治疗颈椎轴下病变的常见手术方法。最近的研究表明,与 ACDF 相比,ACCF 的减压效果更好,但手术风险也随之增加。然而,在创伤情况下使用 ACCF 的描述却很少。本研究旨在评估 ACCF 与更常用的 ACDF 相比的安全性:2006年至2018年期间,在研究中心接受ACCF或ACDF治疗跨越2个椎间盘间隙和3个椎体水平的轴下颈椎损伤的所有患者均符合纳入条件。根据年龄和术前ASIA评分对患者进行配对:匹配后,60 名患者被纳入匹配分析,其中 30 人分别接受了 ACDF 和 ACCF。椎体损伤在 ACCF 组中明显更常见(p = 0.002),而创伤性椎间盘破裂在 ACDF 组中更常见(p = 0.032)。植入失败、伤口感染、吞咽困难、CSF渗漏等手术并发症的发生率在两组间无统计学差异(P≥0.05)。翻修手术率(p > 0.999)、死亡率(p = 0.222)和长期 ASIA 评分(p = 0.081)也相似:结论:非匹配分析和匹配分析的结果表明,ACCF 与 ACDF 相比,疗效相当,且无额外风险。结论:非配对和配对分析结果表明,与 ACDF 相比,ACCF 的疗效相当,且无额外风险,因此是一种安全的方法,广泛前柱损伤的患者应考虑使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Neurochirurgica
Acta Neurochirurgica 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
342
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The journal "Acta Neurochirurgica" publishes only original papers useful both to research and clinical work. Papers should deal with clinical neurosurgery - diagnosis and diagnostic techniques, operative surgery and results, postoperative treatment - or with research work in neuroscience if the underlying questions or the results are of neurosurgical interest. Reports on congresses are given in brief accounts. As official organ of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies the journal publishes all announcements of the E.A.N.S. and reports on the activities of its member societies. Only contributions written in English will be accepted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信