Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion in the treatment of localized ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Tangyiheng Chen, Yujie Wang, Hong Zhou, Cheng Lin, Xuefeng Li, Huilin Yang, Yijie Liu, Weimin Jiang
{"title":"Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion in the treatment of localized ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.","authors":"Tangyiheng Chen,&nbsp;Yujie Wang,&nbsp;Hong Zhou,&nbsp;Cheng Lin,&nbsp;Xuefeng Li,&nbsp;Huilin Yang,&nbsp;Yijie Liu,&nbsp;Weimin Jiang","doi":"10.1177/10225536231167704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The retrospective study was conducted to compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for localized ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) by evaluating clinical and radiologic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed 151 patients to assess the effects of treatment for one or two levels localized OPLL. Perioperative parameters, such as blood loss, operation time and complications, were recorded. Radiologic outcomes, such as the occupying ratio (OR), fusion status, cervical lordosis angle, segmental angle, disc space height, T1 slope, and C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), were assessed. Clinical indices, such as the JOA scores and VAS scores, were investigated to compare the two surgical options.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in the JOA scores or VAS scores between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). The operation time, volume of blood loss and incidence of dysphagia were significantly less in the ACDF group than in the ACCF group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In addition, cervical lordosis, segmental angle and disc space height were significantly different from their preoperative evaluations. No adjacent segment degenerated in the ACDF group. The subsidence rates of implants were 5.2% in the ACDF group and 28.4% in the ACCF group. The degeneration of the ACCF group was 4.1%. The incidence of CSF leaks was 7.8% in the ACDF group and 13.5% in the ACCF group. All the patients ultimately achieved successful fusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although both options achieved satisfactory primary clinical and radiographic efficacies, ACDF was associated with a shorter surgical procedure, less intraoperative blood loss, better radiologic outcomes, and lower incidence of dysphagia than ACCF.</p>","PeriodicalId":48794,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":"31 1","pages":"10225536231167704"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536231167704","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The retrospective study was conducted to compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) for localized ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) by evaluating clinical and radiologic outcomes.

Methods: We reviewed 151 patients to assess the effects of treatment for one or two levels localized OPLL. Perioperative parameters, such as blood loss, operation time and complications, were recorded. Radiologic outcomes, such as the occupying ratio (OR), fusion status, cervical lordosis angle, segmental angle, disc space height, T1 slope, and C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), were assessed. Clinical indices, such as the JOA scores and VAS scores, were investigated to compare the two surgical options.

Results: There were no significant differences in the JOA scores or VAS scores between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time, volume of blood loss and incidence of dysphagia were significantly less in the ACDF group than in the ACCF group (p < 0.05). In addition, cervical lordosis, segmental angle and disc space height were significantly different from their preoperative evaluations. No adjacent segment degenerated in the ACDF group. The subsidence rates of implants were 5.2% in the ACDF group and 28.4% in the ACCF group. The degeneration of the ACCF group was 4.1%. The incidence of CSF leaks was 7.8% in the ACDF group and 13.5% in the ACCF group. All the patients ultimately achieved successful fusion.

Conclusion: Although both options achieved satisfactory primary clinical and radiographic efficacies, ACDF was associated with a shorter surgical procedure, less intraoperative blood loss, better radiologic outcomes, and lower incidence of dysphagia than ACCF.

颈椎前路椎间盘切除术融合与颈椎前路椎体切除术融合治疗后纵韧带局限性骨化的比较。
背景:回顾性研究通过评价临床和影像学结果,比较颈椎前路椎间盘切除术融合术(ACDF)和颈椎前路椎体切除术融合术(ACCF)治疗后纵韧带局限性骨化(OPLL)的疗效。方法:我们回顾了151例患者,评估治疗一、二级局限性OPLL的效果。记录出血量、手术时间、并发症等围手术期参数。评估影像学结果,如占位率(OR)、融合状态、颈椎前凸角、节段角、椎间盘间隙高度、T1斜率和C2-C7矢状垂直轴(SVA)。研究临床指标,如JOA评分和VAS评分,比较两种手术方案。结果:两组患者JOA评分、VAS评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。ACDF组手术时间、失血量、吞咽困难发生率均显著低于ACCF组(p < 0.05)。此外,颈椎前凸度、节段角度和椎间盘间隙高度与术前有显著差异。ACDF组相邻节段无退变。ACDF组种植体沉降率为5.2%,ACCF组为28.4%。ACCF组变性率为4.1%。ACDF组脑脊液渗漏发生率为7.8%,ACCF组为13.5%。所有患者最终均成功融合。结论:虽然两种选择都取得了令人满意的初步临床和影像学疗效,但与ACCF相比,ACDF具有更短的手术时间、更少的术中出血量、更好的影像学结果和更低的吞咽困难发生率。
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
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery is an open access peer-reviewed journal publishing original reviews and research articles on all aspects of orthopaedic surgery. It is the official journal of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association. The journal welcomes and will publish materials of a diverse nature, from basic science research to clinical trials and surgical techniques. The journal encourages contributions from all parts of the world, but special emphasis is given to research of particular relevance to the Asia Pacific region.
×
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