Connor C Long, John E Dugan, Hani Chanbour, Jeffrey W Chen, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Inamullah Khan, Douglas P Terry, Jacqueline S Pennings, Julian Lugo-Pico, Raymond J Gardocki, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman
{"title":"在选择性颈椎后路减压融合术中停止在 C2 与 C3/4：五年随访研究","authors":"Connor C Long, John E Dugan, Hani Chanbour, Jeffrey W Chen, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Inamullah Khan, Douglas P Terry, Jacqueline S Pennings, Julian Lugo-Pico, Raymond J Gardocki, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In patients undergoing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up, we sought to compare reoperation rates between patients with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>The long-term outcomes of choosing between C2 versus C3/4 as the UIV in PCLF remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted of patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018. The primary exposure was UIV of C2 versus C3/4. The primary outcome was reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, smoking, diabetes, and fusion to the thoracic spine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 68 patients who underwent PCLF with 5-year follow-up, 27(39.7%) had a UIV of C2, and 41(60.3%) had a UIV of either C3/4. Groups had similar duration of symptoms ( P =0.743), comorbidities ( P >0.999), and rates of instrumentation to the thoracic spine (70.4% vs. 53.7%, P =0.210). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (231.8±65.9 vs. 181.6±44.1 mins, P <0.001) and more fused segments (5.9±1.8 vs. 4.2±0.9, P <0.001). Reoperation rate was lower in the C2 group compared with C3/4 (7.4% vs. 19.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance ( P =0.294). Multivariable logistic regression showed increased odds of reoperation for the C3/4 group compared with the C2 group (OR=3.29, 95%CI=0.59-18.11, P =0.170), though statistical significance was not reached. Similarly, the C2 group had a lower rate of instrumentation failure (7.4% vs. 12.2%, P =0.694) and adjacent segment disease/disk herniation (0% vs. 7.3%, P =0.271), though neither trend attained statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with a UIV of C2 had less than half the number of reoperations and less adjacent segment disease, though neither trend was statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, whether a clinically meaningful difference exists between UIV of C2 versus C3/4 should be validated in larger samples with long-term follow-up.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level-3.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"E45-E52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stopping at C2 Versus C3/4 in Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: A 5-Year Follow-up Study.\",\"authors\":\"Connor C Long, John E Dugan, Hani Chanbour, Jeffrey W Chen, Iyan Younus, Soren Jonzzon, Inamullah Khan, Douglas P Terry, Jacqueline S Pennings, Julian Lugo-Pico, Raymond J Gardocki, Amir M Abtahi, Byron F Stephens, Scott L Zuckerman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001646\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In patients undergoing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up, we sought to compare reoperation rates between patients with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>The long-term outcomes of choosing between C2 versus C3/4 as the UIV in PCLF remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted of patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018. The primary exposure was UIV of C2 versus C3/4. The primary outcome was reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, smoking, diabetes, and fusion to the thoracic spine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 68 patients who underwent PCLF with 5-year follow-up, 27(39.7%) had a UIV of C2, and 41(60.3%) had a UIV of either C3/4. Groups had similar duration of symptoms ( P =0.743), comorbidities ( P >0.999), and rates of instrumentation to the thoracic spine (70.4% vs. 53.7%, P =0.210). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (231.8±65.9 vs. 181.6±44.1 mins, P <0.001) and more fused segments (5.9±1.8 vs. 4.2±0.9, P <0.001). Reoperation rate was lower in the C2 group compared with C3/4 (7.4% vs. 19.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance ( P =0.294). Multivariable logistic regression showed increased odds of reoperation for the C3/4 group compared with the C2 group (OR=3.29, 95%CI=0.59-18.11, P =0.170), though statistical significance was not reached. Similarly, the C2 group had a lower rate of instrumentation failure (7.4% vs. 12.2%, P =0.694) and adjacent segment disease/disk herniation (0% vs. 7.3%, P =0.271), though neither trend attained statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with a UIV of C2 had less than half the number of reoperations and less adjacent segment disease, though neither trend was statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, whether a clinically meaningful difference exists between UIV of C2 versus C3/4 should be validated in larger samples with long-term follow-up.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level-3.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"E45-E52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001646\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001646","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Stopping at C2 Versus C3/4 in Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: A 5-Year Follow-up Study.
Study design: This is a retrospective cohort study.
Objective: In patients undergoing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up, we sought to compare reoperation rates between patients with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4.
Summary of background data: The long-term outcomes of choosing between C2 versus C3/4 as the UIV in PCLF remain unclear.
Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted of patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018. The primary exposure was UIV of C2 versus C3/4. The primary outcome was reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, smoking, diabetes, and fusion to the thoracic spine.
Results: Of the 68 patients who underwent PCLF with 5-year follow-up, 27(39.7%) had a UIV of C2, and 41(60.3%) had a UIV of either C3/4. Groups had similar duration of symptoms ( P =0.743), comorbidities ( P >0.999), and rates of instrumentation to the thoracic spine (70.4% vs. 53.7%, P =0.210). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (231.8±65.9 vs. 181.6±44.1 mins, P <0.001) and more fused segments (5.9±1.8 vs. 4.2±0.9, P <0.001). Reoperation rate was lower in the C2 group compared with C3/4 (7.4% vs. 19.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance ( P =0.294). Multivariable logistic regression showed increased odds of reoperation for the C3/4 group compared with the C2 group (OR=3.29, 95%CI=0.59-18.11, P =0.170), though statistical significance was not reached. Similarly, the C2 group had a lower rate of instrumentation failure (7.4% vs. 12.2%, P =0.694) and adjacent segment disease/disk herniation (0% vs. 7.3%, P =0.271), though neither trend attained statistical significance.
Conclusions: Patients with a UIV of C2 had less than half the number of reoperations and less adjacent segment disease, though neither trend was statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, whether a clinically meaningful difference exists between UIV of C2 versus C3/4 should be validated in larger samples with long-term follow-up.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
