Park Sehan, Jeong Gumin, Hwang Chang Ju, Cho Jae Hwan, Lee Dong-Ho
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Spine J. 2024 Dec;24(12):2253-2263. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2024.08.027. Epub 2024 Sep 11.
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) combined with uncinate process resection and laminoplasty combined with foraminotomy (LPF) have been used to achieve cervical cord and root decompression in patients with combined cervical myeloradiculopathy (CMR).
To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of ACDF with those of LPF for the treatment of CMR.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.
Patients with CMR who underwent ACDF or LPF and were followed up for at least 2 years.
C2-C7 lordosis, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis, and cervical range of motion (ROM) were determined. The visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, neck disability index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores were analyzed.
The radiographic and clinical outcomes of the 2 groups were compared.
Eighty-four patients were included (n=42 in each group) after application of the inclusion criteria and propensity score matching. A significant decrease in C2-C7 lordosis (p<.001) and ROM (p<.001) was observed in the LPF and ACDF groups, respectively. LPF was associated with a significant decrease in C2 to C7 lordosis (p<.001), while ACDF caused a significant decrease in cervical ROM (p<.001). ACDF effectively improved neck pain VAS (p<.001) and NDI (p<.001), while neck pain did not significantly improve after LPF (p=.103). Furthermore, neck pain VAS (p=.026) and NDI (p=.021) at postoperative 6 months, were significantly greater in the LPF group than in the ACDF group, while the difference was not statistically significant at 2 years postoperatively (neck pain VAS, p=.502; NDI, p=.085). Arm pain VAS and JOA score both significantly improved after LPF (p=.003 and 0.043, respectively) or ACDF (p<.001 and 0.039, respectively), and postoperative results were not significantly different between the 2 groups.
LPF and ACDF yielded similar outcomes for arm pain and neurological recovery. More immediate neck pain improvement was observed with ACDF, while neck pain after 2 years postoperatively was similar between the LPF and ACDF groups. Furthermore, increased postoperative loss of lordosis was observed in the LPF group, whereas decreased postoperative ROM was observed in the ACDF group. These findings should be considered when deciding the surgical method for patients with CMR.
III.
颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)联合钩椎关节切除术以及椎板成形术联合椎间孔切开术(LPF)已被用于治疗合并型颈椎病脊髓神经根病(CMR)患者以实现颈髓和神经根减压。
比较ACDF和LPF治疗CMR的临床和影像学结果。
研究设计/地点:倾向评分匹配的回顾性队列研究。
接受ACDF或LPF治疗且随访至少2年的CMR患者。
测定C2-C7前凸、C2-C7矢状垂直轴以及颈椎活动度(ROM)。分析颈部和手臂疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)以及日本骨科协会(JOA)评分。
比较两组的影像学和临床结果。
应用纳入标准和倾向评分匹配后纳入84例患者(每组n = 42)。LPF组和ACDF组分别观察到C2-C7前凸(p <.001)和ROM(p <.001)显著降低。LPF与C2至C7前凸显著降低相关(p <.001),而ACDF导致颈椎ROM显著降低(p <.001)。ACDF有效改善了颈部疼痛VAS(p <.001)和NDI(p <.001),而LPF后颈部疼痛未显著改善(p = 0.103)。此外,术后6个月时,LPF组的颈部疼痛VAS(p = 0.026)和NDI(p = 0.021)显著高于ACDF组,而术后2年时差异无统计学意义(颈部疼痛VAS,p = 0.502;NDI,p = 0.085)。LPF(分别为p = 0.003和0.043)或ACDF(分别为p <.001和0.039)后手臂疼痛VAS和JOA评分均显著改善,两组术后结果无显著差异。
LPF和ACDF在手臂疼痛和神经功能恢复方面产生相似的结果。ACDF能更迅速地改善颈部疼痛,而术后2年时LPF组和ACDF组的颈部疼痛相似。此外,LPF组术后前凸丢失增加,而ACDF组术后ROM降低。为CMR患者决定手术方法时应考虑这些发现。
III级。