Schroeder Christian B, Michles Madison J, Sastry Rahul A, Chernysh Alexander A, Leary Owen P, Sun Felicia, Camara-Quintana Joaquin Q, Oyelese Adetokunbo A, Telfeian Albert E, Fridley Jared S, Gokaslan Ziya L, Sullivan Patricia Zadnik, Niu Tianyi
Department of Neurosurgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.
N Am Spine Soc J. 2024 Sep 24;20:100560. doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2024.100560. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Previous research on spinal alignment and postoperative outcomes after cervical and upper thoracic fixation has suggested that clinical and patient-reported outcomes are improved when certain anatomical parameters are maintained. These parameters include the cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), C2 and T1 slopes, and cervical lordosis (CL). For patients with primary and metastatic tumors involving the subaxial cervical and/or upper thoracic spine, there is minimal guidance on how to apply these parameters. Surgeons must make critical decisions when designing the optimal construct, considering patient life expectancy, bone quality, oncology goals and deformity. This study aims to evaluate the impact of cervical spine alignment parameters on postoperative hardware failure in spine tumor patients and highlight instances of complications in patients with instrumentation crossing the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ).
A retrospective review of a single institutional spine tumor database identified seventeen patients who underwent spinal fusion crossing the CTJ from 2015 to 2023. All patients had postoperative neutral standing radiographs with measurable cSVA, C2 and T1 slopes, and/or CL. The primary endpoint was instrumentation failure, defined as hardware pull out or breakage, and secondary endpoints included other complications including wound infection and spinal fluid leak.
The number of instrumented levels ranged from 3 to 15 segments with a mean of 7.47. Surgical approaches included anterior (=3), posterior (=12), and simultaneous anterior and posterior (=2). The mean cSVA was 3.39±1.02 cm (range 1.59-4.9 cm). Fourteen patients had measurable C2 slopes with a mean of 25.03±9.16° (range 8.7 - 38.6°). Ten patients had measurable T1 slopes with a mean of 31.5±11.54° (range 18.4-59.6°). Thirteen patients had a measurable CL with a mean of 9.13±9.93° (range 0-37.5°). No cases of instrumentation failure were noted. Four patients experienced other postoperative complications (24%), but rates did not vary with increasing deviation from ideal parameters for cSVA, C2 and T1 slope, or CL.
Although there was wide variability in alignment parameters in this cohort, there were no instances of hardware failure with crossing the CTJ at a mean follow-up of 41 months. The overall complication rate was high at 24%. Despite common concerns about the impact of exaggerated slope and SVA on instrumentation failure these results suggest that cervical and upper thoracic tumor patients may still have a satisfactory result following CTJ fixation, even with unfavorable alignment parameters. Larger prospective studies are needed.
先前关于颈椎和上胸椎固定术后脊柱排列及术后结果的研究表明,保持某些解剖学参数可改善临床和患者报告的结果。这些参数包括颈椎矢状垂直轴(cSVA)、C2和T1斜率以及颈椎前凸(CL)。对于累及下颈椎和/或上胸椎的原发性和转移性肿瘤患者,关于如何应用这些参数的指导很少。外科医生在设计最佳植入物时必须做出关键决策,要考虑患者预期寿命、骨质、肿瘤学目标和畸形情况。本研究旨在评估颈椎排列参数对脊柱肿瘤患者术后内固定失败的影响,并强调内固定跨越颈胸交界区(CTJ)的患者发生并发症的情况。
对一个单一机构的脊柱肿瘤数据库进行回顾性分析,确定了2015年至2023年期间接受跨越CTJ脊柱融合术的17例患者。所有患者术后均有可测量cSVA、C2和T1斜率及/或CL的中立位站立位X线片。主要终点是内固定失败,定义为内固定拔出或断裂,次要终点包括其他并发症,如伤口感染和脑脊液漏。
内固定节段数为3至15个节段,平均为7.47个。手术入路包括前路(=3)、后路(=12)和前后联合入路(=2)。平均cSVA为3.39±1.02 cm(范围1.59 - 4.9 cm)。14例患者可测量C2斜率,平均为25.03±9.16°(范围8.7 - 38.6°)。10例患者可测量T1斜率,平均为31.5±11.54°(范围18.4 - 59.6°)。13例患者可测量CL,平均为9.13±9.93°(范围0 - 37.5°)。未发现内固定失败病例。4例患者出现其他术后并发症(24%),但并发症发生率并未随cSVA、C2和T1斜率或CL偏离理想参数的增加而变化。
尽管该队列中的排列参数存在很大差异,但在平均41个月的随访中,没有内固定跨越CTJ失败的情况。总体并发症发生率较高,为24%。尽管人们普遍担心过大的斜率和SVA对内固定失败的影响,但这些结果表明,即使排列参数不理想,下颈椎和上胸椎肿瘤患者在CTJ固定后仍可能获得满意的结果。需要进行更大规模的前瞻性研究。