Download PDF
Seminars in Neurosurgery 2003; 14(1): 049-054
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-41149
Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Treatment Strategies for Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease after Cervical Fusion

Joseph S. Cheng1 , Dennis J. Maiman2,3 , M. Renée Chambers1
  • 1Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
  • 2Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • 3Veterans' Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 August 2003 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Segmental degenerative changes adjacent to prior cervical spine arthrodesis have been frequently reported. When these degenerative changes are associated with the development of new neurological symptoms, such as radiculopathy or myelopathy, the clinical diagnosis of adjacent segment disease is made. A multitude of factors have been postulated to influence adjacent segment degeneration. These include the length of the fusion, loss of normal alignment, pre-existing spondylosis at the adjacent regions, and the stiffness of the implant. Many of these studies have been based on biomechanical evaluations of the implant-biological milieu, but the clinical aspects of the patient's symptomatology have led to questions regarding the role of degenerative spondylosis and the subsequent development of adjacent segment disease. This article will review the literature regarding adjacent segment disease after cervical fusion and discuss treatment strategies, including pre-emptive treatment based on defining two subsets of this patient population.

KEYWORDS

Adjacent segment - degeneration - cervical - fusion - arthrodesis - complications

REFERENCES

  • 1 Goffin J, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F, Plets C. Long-term results after anterior cervical fusion and osteosynthetic stabilization for fractures and/or dislocations of the cervical spine.  J Spinal Disord . 1995;  8 500-508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Javedan S, Dickman C. Causes of adjacent-segment disease after spinal fusion.  Lancet . 1999;  354 530-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hilibrand A, Yoo J, Carlson G, Bohlman H. The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion.  Spine . 1997;  22 1574-1579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K. Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels.  Eur Spine J . 2001;  10 320-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hilibrand A, Carlson G, Palumbo M, Jones P, Bohlman H. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.  J Bone Joint Surg . 1999;  81 519-528
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Yoshida M, Hayashi N, Ando M, Yamada H. Axial symptoms and cervical alignments after cervical anterior spinal fusion for patients with cervical myelopathy.  J Spinal Disord . 1999;  12 50-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Heller J G, Silcox 3rd H D, Sutterlin 3rd E C. Complications of posterior cervical plating.  Spine . 1995;  20 2442-2448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Grob D, Dvorak J, Panjabi M, Antinnes J. The role of plate and screw fixation in occipitocervical fusion in rheumatoid arthritis.  Spine . 1994;  19 2545-2551
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, Matsuoka T, Miyamoto S, Yonenobu K. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years.  Spine . 2001;  26 1443-1447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wu W, Thuomas K, Hedlund R, Leszniewski W, Vavruch L. Degenerative changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion evaluated by fast spin-echo MR imaging.  Acta Radiol . 1996;  37 614-617
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy.  Spine . 1993;  18 2167-2173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rohlmann A, Calisse J, Bergmann G, Weber U. Internal spinal fixator stiffness has only a minor influence on stresses in the adjacent discs.  Spine . 1999;  24 1192-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Benzel E. Biomechanics of Spine Stabilization. Chicago, IL: AANS Pr 2001: 171-188
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Wang J, Zou D, Yuan H, Yoo J. A biomechanical evaluation of graft loading characteristics for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. A comparison of traditional and reverse grafting techniques.  Spine . 1998;  23 2450-2454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Antoniou J, Pike G, Steffen T. et al . Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of degenerative disc disease.  Magn Reson Med . 1998;  40 900-907
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Krieg J, Clark C, Goetz D. Cervical spine arthrodesis in rheumatoid arthritis: a long-term follow-up.  Yale J Biol Med . 1993;  66 257-262
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kelsey J. Epidemiology of radiculopathies.  Adv Neurol . 1978;  19 385-398
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lestini W, Wiesel S. The pathogenesis of cervical spondylosis.  Clin Orthop . 1989;  239 69-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar F, Maiman D, Goel V. Contribution of disc degeneration to osteophyte formation in the cervical spine: a biomechanical investigation.  J Orthop Res . 2001;  19 977-984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Whitehill R, Moran D, Fechner R. et al . Cervical ligamentous instability in a canine in vivo model.  Spine . 1987;  12 959-963
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Maiman D, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar F. Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments.  Biomed Mater Eng . 1999;  9 27-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nathan H. Osteophytes of the vertebral column.  J Bone Joint Surg . 1962;  44 243-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brown T, Pedersen D, Gray M, Brand R, Rubin C. Toward an identification of mechanical parameters initiating periosteal remodeling: a combined experimental and analytic approach.  J Biomech . 1990;  23 893-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tobin W. An atlas of the comparative anatomy of the upper end of the femur. I.  Further evidence and confirmation of Wolff's Law of the femur. I. Further evidence and confirmation of Wolff's Law of Bone Transformation. Clin Orthop . 1968;  56 83-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wolff J. Das Gezetz der Transformation der Knochen. Berlin, Germany: 1892
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Lipson S, Muir H. Vertebral osteophyte formation in experimental disc degeneration. Morphologic and proteoglycan changes over time.  Arthritis Rheum . 1980;  23 319-324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Natarajan R, Chen B, An H, Andersson G. Biomechnical analysis of the cervical discectomy and fusion using a three segment model. Pittsburgh, PA: American Soc Biomechanics 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Fuller D, Kirkpatrick J, Emery S, Wilber R, Davy D. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis.  Spine . 1998;  23 1649-1656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Shimamoto N, Cunningham B, Dmitriev A, Minami A, McAfee P. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone interbody fusion cages in the cervical spine.  Spine . 2001;  26 432-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Weinhoffer S, Guyer R, Herbert M, Griffith S. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study.  Spine . 1995;  20 526-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Smith D, Lowe T, O'Brien M. et al .Posterior spinal fusion versus 360 fusion in a calf spine model: a biomechanical analysis of motion at the instrumented and adjacent uninstrumented segments. 2000. Available at: http://SpineUniverse. com/displayarticle.php/article379.html. Accessed August 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Natarajan R, Yoon S, An H, Andersson G. Sagittal alignment of ACDF influences adjacent disc biomechanics. In: , ed. San Francisco, CA: Orthopaedic Research Soc; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Kumar M, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion.  Eur Spine J . 2001;  10 314-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Natarajan R, Chen B, An H, Andersson G. Anterior cervical fusion: a finite element model study on motion segment stability including the effect of osteoporosis.  Spine . 2000;  25 955-961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rohlmannt A, Claes L, Bergmannt G, Graichen F, Neef P, Wilke H. Comparison of intradiscal pressures and spinal fixator loads for different body positions and exercises.  Ergonomics . 2001;  44 781-794
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schneiderman G, Flannigan B, Kingston S, Thomas J, Dillin W, Watkins R. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of disc degeneration: correlation with discography.  Spine . 1987;  12 276-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion.  Spine . 1999;  24 670-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kerttula L, Kurunlahti M, Jauhiainen J, Koivula A, Oikarinen J, Tervonen O. Apparent diffusion coefficients and T2 relaxation time measurements to evaluate disc degeneration. A quantitative MR study of young patients with previous vertebral fracture.  Acta Radiol . 2001;  42 585-591
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lipson S, Muir H. Volvo Award in Basic Science. Proteoglycans in experimental intervertebral disc degeneration.  Spine . 1981;  6 194-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Iseda T, Goya T, Nakano S, Kodama T, Moriyama T, Wakisaka S. Serial changes in signal intensities of the adjacent discs on T2-weighted sagittal images after surgical treatment of cervical spondylosis: anterior interbody fusion versus expansive laminoplasty.  Acta Neurochirurg (Wien) . 2001;  143 707-710
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Iwasaki H, Yoshida M, Ando M, Yamada H. A comparative study of surgical approaches for cervical compressive myelopathy.  Clin Orthop . 2000;  381 129-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Brodke D, Gollogly S, Alexander Mohr R, Nguyen B, Dailey A, Bachus A. Dynamic cervical plates: biomechanical evaluation of load sharing and stiffness.  Spine . 2001;  26 1324-1329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, Langdon I, Metcalf N, Robertson J. Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease.  J Neurosurg . 2002;  96 (suppl 1) S17-S21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
      >