Justin J Turcotte, Jane C Brennan, Andrea H Johnson, Chad M Patton
{"title":"先前单节段颈椎前路融合术患者的翻修前路融合术与颈椎椎间盘置换术的中期结果。","authors":"Justin J Turcotte, Jane C Brennan, Andrea H Johnson, Chad M Patton","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Revision cervical surgery presents unique challenges due to altered anatomy and biomechanics from the previous fusion. Revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) offers the benefit of immediate stability but further reduces cervical mobility and may increase stress on remaining segments, potentially leading to additional degeneration. By performing a cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in the presence of a prior ACDF, a hybrid surgery (HS) construct is created, potentially combining the benefits of fusion stability with CDA motion preservation.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of one-level ACDF or CDA in patients with a history of prior one-level ACDF.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>Patients undergoing one-level ACDF or CDA with a history of prior one-level ACDF, with records in the Pearl Diver database from 2010 to April 30, 2023. All patients had 1-year minimum follow-up; surgeries for trauma, infection, or neoplasm, and those with concomitant cervical procedures were excluded.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was any cervical reoperation at 2-years and 5-years postoperatively. Types of reoperations, 90-day complications, 2-year complications, and 2-year cost were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ACDF and CDA groups were propensity score matched in a 3:1 ratio. Univariate analyses (chi-square and independent samples t-tests) were performed to compare demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes after matching. Kaplan Meir analysis was performed to compare 5-year reoperation-free survival between the ACDF and CDA groups; survival rates were compared using the Log Rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, 792 ACDF and 264 CDA patients were included. No significant differences in demographics or comorbidities were observed. The overall rate of 90-day complications was 3.9% in the ACDF and 3.0% in the CDA group; no significant differences in complication rates were found. ACDF patients experienced higher rates of pseudoarthrosis (6.4 vs. 1.1%, p=.001) at 2-years postoperatively. Overall, two-year reoperation rates were similar between groups (ACDF: 10.7 vs. CDA: 7.6%, p=.172). Over the 5-year postoperative period, no significant differences in ACDF, ACDF or CDA, other cervical, or any cervical reoperations were observed. The rate of any cervical reoperation was 13.5% in the ACDF group and 13.3% in the CDA group (p=1.000). No significant differences in 5-year reoperation-free survival were found between ACDF and CDA patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both single-level ACDF and CDA yielded similar complication and reoperation rates at 2- and 5-years postoperatively in patients with a history of prior single-level ACDF. Either approach appears to be a viable treatment strategy in patients requiring reoperation after single-level ACDF. However, future studies are required to validate these findings in more homogenous patient populations, and to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of ACDF and CDA in the revision setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mid-term outcomes of revision anterior fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty in patients with prior single-level anterior cervical fusion.\",\"authors\":\"Justin J Turcotte, Jane C Brennan, Andrea H Johnson, Chad M Patton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Revision cervical surgery presents unique challenges due to altered anatomy and biomechanics from the previous fusion. Revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) offers the benefit of immediate stability but further reduces cervical mobility and may increase stress on remaining segments, potentially leading to additional degeneration. By performing a cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in the presence of a prior ACDF, a hybrid surgery (HS) construct is created, potentially combining the benefits of fusion stability with CDA motion preservation.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of one-level ACDF or CDA in patients with a history of prior one-level ACDF.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>Patients undergoing one-level ACDF or CDA with a history of prior one-level ACDF, with records in the Pearl Diver database from 2010 to April 30, 2023. All patients had 1-year minimum follow-up; surgeries for trauma, infection, or neoplasm, and those with concomitant cervical procedures were excluded.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was any cervical reoperation at 2-years and 5-years postoperatively. Types of reoperations, 90-day complications, 2-year complications, and 2-year cost were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ACDF and CDA groups were propensity score matched in a 3:1 ratio. Univariate analyses (chi-square and independent samples t-tests) were performed to compare demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes after matching. Kaplan Meir analysis was performed to compare 5-year reoperation-free survival between the ACDF and CDA groups; survival rates were compared using the Log Rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, 792 ACDF and 264 CDA patients were included. No significant differences in demographics or comorbidities were observed. The overall rate of 90-day complications was 3.9% in the ACDF and 3.0% in the CDA group; no significant differences in complication rates were found. ACDF patients experienced higher rates of pseudoarthrosis (6.4 vs. 1.1%, p=.001) at 2-years postoperatively. Overall, two-year reoperation rates were similar between groups (ACDF: 10.7 vs. CDA: 7.6%, p=.172). Over the 5-year postoperative period, no significant differences in ACDF, ACDF or CDA, other cervical, or any cervical reoperations were observed. The rate of any cervical reoperation was 13.5% in the ACDF group and 13.3% in the CDA group (p=1.000). No significant differences in 5-year reoperation-free survival were found between ACDF and CDA patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both single-level ACDF and CDA yielded similar complication and reoperation rates at 2- and 5-years postoperatively in patients with a history of prior single-level ACDF. Either approach appears to be a viable treatment strategy in patients requiring reoperation after single-level ACDF. However, future studies are required to validate these findings in more homogenous patient populations, and to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of ACDF and CDA in the revision setting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.007\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.05.007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景背景:颈椎翻修手术由于先前的融合改变了解剖结构和生物力学,提出了独特的挑战。颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF)提供了立即稳定的好处,但进一步降低了颈椎的活动度,并可能增加对剩余节段的压力,潜在地导致额外的退变。通过在先前存在ACDF的情况下进行颈椎椎间盘置换术(CDA),创建了混合手术(HS)结构,潜在地结合了融合稳定性和CDA运动保持的好处。目的:比较既往有一级ACDF病史的患者进行一级ACDF或CDA治疗的结果。研究设计:回顾性队列研究。患者样本:2010年至2023年4月30日在PearlDiver数据库中有记录的既往有一级ACDF病史的单级ACDF或CDA患者。所有患者至少随访1年;创伤、感染或肿瘤手术以及伴随的宫颈手术被排除在外。结局指标:主要结局是术后2年和5年的宫颈再手术。评估再手术类型、90天并发症、2年并发症及2年费用。方法:ACDF组与CDA组倾向评分按3:1比例匹配。进行单变量分析(卡方检验和独立样本t检验)来比较人口统计学、合并症和匹配后的结果。Kaplan Meir分析比较ACDF组和CDA组5年无再手术生存率;生存率采用Log Rank检验进行比较。结果:匹配后纳入ACDF患者792例,CDA患者264例。在人口统计学或合并症方面没有观察到显著差异。ACDF组90天总并发症发生率为3.9%,CDA组为3.0%;并发症发生率无显著差异。ACDF患者术后2年的假关节发生率较高(6.4比1.1%,p=0.001)。总体而言,两组间两年再手术率相似(ACDF: 10.7 vs. CDA: 7.6%, p=0.172)。术后5年期间,ACDF、ACDF或CDA、其他颈椎手术或任何颈椎再手术均无显著差异。ACDF组颈椎再手术率为13.5%,CDA组为13.3% (p=1.000)。ACDF与CDA患者5年无再手术生存率无显著差异。结论:单节段ACDF和CDA在有单节段ACDF病史的患者术后2年和5年的并发症和再手术率相似。对于单节段ACDF术后需要再手术的患者,这两种方法似乎都是可行的治疗策略。然而,未来的研究需要在更均匀的患者群体中验证这些发现,并比较ACDF和CDA在翻修环境中的功能和影像学结果。
Mid-term outcomes of revision anterior fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty in patients with prior single-level anterior cervical fusion.
Background context: Revision cervical surgery presents unique challenges due to altered anatomy and biomechanics from the previous fusion. Revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) offers the benefit of immediate stability but further reduces cervical mobility and may increase stress on remaining segments, potentially leading to additional degeneration. By performing a cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in the presence of a prior ACDF, a hybrid surgery (HS) construct is created, potentially combining the benefits of fusion stability with CDA motion preservation.
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of one-level ACDF or CDA in patients with a history of prior one-level ACDF.
Study design: Retrospective cohort study.
Patient sample: Patients undergoing one-level ACDF or CDA with a history of prior one-level ACDF, with records in the Pearl Diver database from 2010 to April 30, 2023. All patients had 1-year minimum follow-up; surgeries for trauma, infection, or neoplasm, and those with concomitant cervical procedures were excluded.
Outcome measures: The primary outcome was any cervical reoperation at 2-years and 5-years postoperatively. Types of reoperations, 90-day complications, 2-year complications, and 2-year cost were evaluated.
Methods: The ACDF and CDA groups were propensity score matched in a 3:1 ratio. Univariate analyses (chi-square and independent samples t-tests) were performed to compare demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes after matching. Kaplan Meir analysis was performed to compare 5-year reoperation-free survival between the ACDF and CDA groups; survival rates were compared using the Log Rank test.
Results: After matching, 792 ACDF and 264 CDA patients were included. No significant differences in demographics or comorbidities were observed. The overall rate of 90-day complications was 3.9% in the ACDF and 3.0% in the CDA group; no significant differences in complication rates were found. ACDF patients experienced higher rates of pseudoarthrosis (6.4 vs. 1.1%, p=.001) at 2-years postoperatively. Overall, two-year reoperation rates were similar between groups (ACDF: 10.7 vs. CDA: 7.6%, p=.172). Over the 5-year postoperative period, no significant differences in ACDF, ACDF or CDA, other cervical, or any cervical reoperations were observed. The rate of any cervical reoperation was 13.5% in the ACDF group and 13.3% in the CDA group (p=1.000). No significant differences in 5-year reoperation-free survival were found between ACDF and CDA patients.
Conclusions: Both single-level ACDF and CDA yielded similar complication and reoperation rates at 2- and 5-years postoperatively in patients with a history of prior single-level ACDF. Either approach appears to be a viable treatment strategy in patients requiring reoperation after single-level ACDF. However, future studies are required to validate these findings in more homogenous patient populations, and to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of ACDF and CDA in the revision setting.
期刊介绍:
The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.