Yue John K, Upadhyayula Pavan S, Deng Hansen, Sing David C, Ciacci Joseph D
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2017 Jul-Sep;8(3):222-230. doi: 10.4103/jcvjs.JCVJS_88_17.
Cervical spine fusion is the preferred treatment modality for a variety of degenerative and/or myelopathic disorders. Surgeons select between two approaches (anterior or posterior cervical fusion [ACF; PCF]) based on pathoanatomical features and spinal levels involved. Complications and outcome profiles between the approaches following elective surgery have not been systematically investigated.
Adult patients undergoing elective ACF or PCF were extracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program years 2011-2014. Five hundred twenty-eight patients (264 ACF and 264 PCF) were matched 1:1 by age, sex, functional status, vertebral levels operated, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Multivariable regression was performed by surgical approach for operation time, complications, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and discharge destination, controlling for body mass index and comorbidities. Mean differences (B), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.
Compared to ACF, PCF was associated with increased odds of blood transfusions >1 unit (OR = 4.31, 95% CI [1.18-15.75]; = 0.027) and failure to discharge to home (OR = 3.68 [2.17-6.25]; < 0.001), and increased mean HLOS (B = 1.72 days [1.19-2.26]; < 0.001). No differences in operation time, other complications, or reoperation rates were found by surgical approach.
In a matched cohort analysis by age, sex, functional and physical status, and vertebral levels, elective PCF is associated with increased HLOS and increased likelihood of failing to discharge to home compared to ACF without increased risk of 30-day complications. Increased blood transfusion volume is noted for patients undergoing PCF. Future prospective studies are warranted.
颈椎融合术是治疗多种退行性和/或脊髓病性疾病的首选治疗方式。外科医生根据病理解剖特征和受累的脊柱节段在两种手术入路(前路或后路颈椎融合术[ACF;PCF])之间进行选择。择期手术后两种手术入路的并发症和预后情况尚未得到系统研究。
从美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划2011 - 2014年的数据中提取接受择期ACF或PCF的成年患者。528例患者(264例ACF和264例PCF)按年龄、性别、功能状态、手术的椎体节段以及美国麻醉医师协会分级进行1:1匹配。通过手术入路对手术时间、并发症、住院时间(HLOS)和出院目的地进行多变量回归分析,并对体重指数和合并症进行控制。报告平均差异(B)、比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)。
与ACF相比,PCF与输注超过1单位血液的几率增加(OR = 4.31,95% CI [1.18 - 15.75];P = 0.027)、未能出院回家的几率增加(OR = 3.68 [2.17 - 6.25];P < 0.001)以及平均HLOS增加(B = 1.72天[1.19 - 2.26];P < 0.001)相关。手术入路在手术时间、其他并发症或再次手术率方面未发现差异。
在按年龄、性别、功能和身体状况以及椎体节段进行匹配的队列分析中,与ACF相比,择期PCF与HLOS增加以及未能出院回家的可能性增加相关,且30天并发症风险未增加。接受PCF的患者输血量大。未来有必要进行前瞻性研究。