Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2021; 82(02): 154-160
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1720992
Original Article

ACDF plus Uncovertebrectomy versus ACDF alone for the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

Yaqing Cui
1   Department of Orthopaedic, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Yongchun Zhou
1   Department of Orthopaedic, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Jun Liu
1   Department of Orthopaedic, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Dapeng Duan
1   Department of Orthopaedic, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Liqun Gong
1   Department of Orthopaedic, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
,
Weiwei Li
1   Department of Orthopaedic, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The surgical approach for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) is controversial. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the combined anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and uncovertebrectomy for treatment of CSR.

Methods This is a retrospective case control study. One hundred and forty-six patients with CSR who underwent two different procedures (ACDF alone [group A]) and a combination of ACDF and uncovertebrectomy [group B]) from March 2008 to April 2013 were included. The operation time, blood loss, Visual Analog Scale scores of the neck (VAS-neck) and arm (VAS-arm), Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, fusion segment curvature, global cervical curvature, and the rate of surgical complication were evaluated.

Results There were no significant differences in the basic demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noticed in the fusion segment curvature and global cervical curvature between the two groups (p > 0.05). Whereas the operation time and blood loss in group B were greater than those in group A (p < 0.05), the VAS-neck, VAS-arm, NDI, and SF-36 scores were better in group B (p < 0.05). The surgical complication rate between the two groups was not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Conclusions Clinical efficacy of ACDF plus uncovertebrectomy for the treatment of patients with CSR may be better than that of ACDF alone, but at the expense of more operation time and blood loss.

Keywords

cervical spondylosis - radiculopathy - ACDF - uncovertebrectomy


Publication History

Received: 18 April 2020

Accepted: 25 August 2020

Article published online:
01 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Woods BI, Hilibrand AS. Cervical radiculopathy: epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (05) E251-E259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Song Z, Zhang Z, Hao J. et al. Microsurgery or open cervical foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (06) 1335-1343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lv Y, Tian W, Chen D, Liu Y, Wang L, Duan F. The prevalence and associated factors of symptomatic cervical spondylosis in Chinese adults: a community-based cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19 (01) 325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Engquist M, Löfgren H, Öberg B. et al. Surgery versus nonsurgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective, randomized study comparing surgery plus physiotherapy with physiotherapy alone with a 2-year follow-up. Spine 2013; 38 (20) 1715-1722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Epstein JA, Carras R, Lavine LS, Epstein BS. The importance of removing osteophytes as part of the surgical treatment of myeloradiculopathy in cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 1969; 30 (03) 219-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Biyani A, Brown JA, Yeasting RA. Anatomic considerations for uncovertebral involvement in cervical spondylosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; (334) 200-206
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pakzaban P. Ultrasonic total uncinectomy: a novel technique for complete anterior decompression of cervical nerve roots. Neurosurgery 2014; 10 (Suppl. 04) 535-541 , discussion 541
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hartman J. Anatomy and clinical significance of the uncinate process and uncovertebral joint: a comprehensive review. Clin Anat 2014; 27 (03) 431-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Snyder JT, Tzermiadianos MN, Ghanayem AJ. et al. Effect of uncovertebral joint excision on the motion response of the cervical spine after total disc replacement. Spine 2007; 32 (26) 2965-2969
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ou Y, Lu J, Mi J. et al. Extensive anterior decompression for mixed cervical spondylosis. Resection of uncovertebral joints, neural and transverse foraminotomy, subtotal corpectomy, and fusion with strut graft. Spine 1994; 19 (23) 2651-2656 , discussion 2656–2657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Persson LC, Moritz U, Brandt L, Carlsson CA. Cervical radiculopathy: pain, muscle weakness and sensory loss in patients with cervical radiculopathy treated with surgery, physiotherapy or cervical collar. A prospective, controlled study. Eur Spine J 1997; 6 (04) 256-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schelfaut S, Verhasselt S, Carpentier K, Moke L. Subaxial rotational vertebral artery syndrome: resection of the uncinate process and anterior fusion can be sufficient!: case report and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (02) 66-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ha BY, Sim HB, Lyo IUH, Park ES, Kwon SC, Park JB. Comparisons of two-level discectomy and fusion with cage alone versus single-level corpectomy and fusion with plate in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Korean J Spine 2012; 9 (03) 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hacker RJ, Miller CG. Failed anterior cervical foraminotomy. J Neurosurg 2003; 98 (02) 126-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shen FH, Samartzis D, Khanna N, Goldberg EJ, An HS. Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcome in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with or without direct uncovertebral joint decompression. Spine J 2004; 4 (06) 629-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chibbaro S, Mirone G, Bresson D, George B. Cervical spine lateral approach for myeloradiculopathy: technique and pitfalls. Surg Neurol 2009; 72 (04) 318-324 , discussion 324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Brown JA, Biyani A, Yeasting RA. Vulnerability of vertebral artery in anterolateral decompression for cervical spondylosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (322) 146-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ebraheim NA, Reader D, Xu R, Yeasting RA. Location of the vertebral artery foramen on the anterior aspect of the lower cervical spine by computed tomography. J Spinal Disord 1997; 10 (04) 304-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hussain M, Nassr A, Natarajan RN, An HS, Andersson GB. Biomechanical effects of anterior, posterior, and combined anterior-posterior instrumentation techniques on the stability of a multilevel cervical corpectomy construct: a finite element model analysis. Spine J 2011; 11 (04) 324-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Li J, Zheng Q, Guo X. et al. Anterior surgical options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in a long-term follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133 (06) 745-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fengbin Y, Jinhao M, Xinyuan L, Xinwei W, Yu C, Deyu C. Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (12) 2891-2896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jang JW, Lee JK, Lee JH, Hur H, Kim TW, Kim SH. Effect of posterior subsidence on cervical alignment after anterior cervical corpectomy and reconstruction using titanium mesh cages in degenerative cervical disease. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21 (10) 1779-1785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Faldini C, Chehrassan M, Miscione MT. et al. Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion using PEEK anatomical cervical cage and allograft bone. J Orthop Traumatol 2011; 12 (04) 201-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kasliwal MK, O'Toole JE. Clinical experience using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) intervertebral structural cage for anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21 (02) 217-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cabraja M, Oezdemir S, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X. et al. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (07) 1539-1546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar