Abbas Syed F, Spurgas Morgan P, Szewczyk Benjamin S, Yim Benjamin, Ata Ashar, German John W
Albany Medical College, and.
Departments of Neurosurgery and.
Neurosurg Focus. 2016 Jun;40(6):E7. doi: 10.3171/2016.3.FOCUS1650.
OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive posterior cervical decompression (miPCD) has been described in several case series with promising preliminary results. The object of the current study was to compare the clinical outcomes between patients undergoing miPCD with anterior cervical discectomy and instrumented fusion (ACDFi). METHODS A retrospective study of 74 patients undergoing surgery (45 using miPCD and 29 using ACDFi) for myelopathy was performed. Outcomes were categorized into short-term, intermediate, and long-term follow-up, corresponding to averages of 1.7, 7.7, and 30.9 months, respectively. Mean scores for the Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck visual analog scale (VAS) score, SF-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS), and SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were compared for each follow-up period. The percentage of patients meeting substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was also compared for each outcome measure. RESULTS Baseline patient characteristics were well-matched, with the exception that patients undergoing miPCD were older (mean age 57.6 ± 10.0 years [miPCD] vs 51.1 ± 9.2 years [ACDFi]; p = 0.006) and underwent surgery at more levels (mean 2.8 ± 0.9 levels [miPCD] vs 1.5 ± 0.7 levels [ACDFi]; p < 0.0001) while the ACDFi patients reported higher preoperative neck VAS scores (mean 3.8 ± 3.0 [miPCD] vs 5.4 ± 2.6 [ACDFi]; p = 0.047). The mean PCS, NDI, neck VAS, and MCS scores were not significantly different with the exception of the MCS score at the short-term follow-up period (mean 46.8 ± 10.6 [miPCD] vs 41.3 ± 10.7 [ACDFi]; p = 0.033). The percentage of patients reporting SCB based on thresholds derived for PCS, NDI, neck VAS, and MCS scores were not significantly different, with the exception of the PCS score at the intermediate follow-up period (52% [miPCD] vs 80% [ACDFi]; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS The current report suggests that the optimal surgical strategy in patients requiring dorsal surgery may be enhanced by the adoption of a minimally invasive surgical approach that appears to result in similar clinical outcomes when compared with a well-accepted strategy of ventral decompression and instrumented fusion. The current results suggest that future comparative effectiveness studies are warranted as the miPCD technique avoids instrumented fusion.
在多个病例系列中已对微创后路颈椎减压术(miPCD)进行了描述,其初步结果令人鼓舞。本研究的目的是比较接受miPCD与前路颈椎间盘切除及内固定融合术(ACDFi)患者的临床结局。方法:对74例因脊髓病接受手术治疗的患者进行回顾性研究(45例采用miPCD,29例采用ACDFi)。结局分为短期、中期和长期随访,分别对应平均1.7个月、7.7个月和30.9个月。比较每个随访期的颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)、颈部视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、SF-12身体成分总结(PCS)和SF-12精神成分总结(MCS)的平均得分。还比较了每种结局指标达到显著临床获益(SCB)的患者百分比。结果:除接受miPCD的患者年龄较大(平均年龄57.6±10.0岁[miPCD] vs 51.1±9.2岁[ACDFi];p = 0.006)、手术节段更多(平均2.8±0.9节段[miPCD] vs 1.5±0.7节段[ACDFi];p < 0.0001),而ACDFi患者术前颈部VAS评分较高(平均3.8±3.0[miPCD] vs 5.4±2.6[ACDFi];p = 0.047)外,基线患者特征匹配良好。除短期随访期的MCS评分外(平均46.8±10.6[miPCD] vs 4l.3±10.7[ACDFi];p = 0.¨3),平均PCS、NDI、颈部VAS和MCS评分无显著差异。基于PCS、NDI、颈部VAS和MCS评分得出的阈值报告SCB的患者百分比无显著差异,除中期随访期的PCS评分外(52%[miPCD] vs 80%[ACDFi];p = 0.011)。结论:本报告表明,对于需要进行后路手术的患者,采用微创外科手术方法可能会优化手术策略,与广泛接受的前路减压及内固定融合策略相比,该方法似乎能产生相似的临床结局。当前结果表明,鉴于miPCD技术避免了内固定融合,未来有必要进行比较有效性研究。