Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction

Abstract

Background

As the number of cervical spine procedures performed continues to increase, the need for revision surgery is also likely to increase. Surgeons need to understand the etiology of post-surgical changes, as well as have a treatment algorithm when evaluating these complex patients.

Questions/Purposes

This study aims to review the rates and etiology of revision cervical spine surgery as well as describe our treatment algorithm.

Methods

We used a narrative and literature review. We performed a MEDLINE (PubMed) search for “cervical” and “spine” and “revision” which returned 353 articles from 1993 through January 22, 2014. Abstracts were analyzed for relevance and 32 articles were reviewed.

Results

The rates of revision surgery on the cervical spine vary by the type and extent of procedure performed. Patient evaluation should include a detailed history and review of the indication for the index procedure, as well as lab work to rule out infection. Imaging studies including flexion/extension radiographs and computed tomography are obtained to evaluate potential pseudarthrosis. Magnetic resonance imaging is helpful to evaluate the disc, neural elements, soft tissue, and to differentiate scar from infection. Sagittal alignment should be corrected if necessary.

Conclusions

Recurrent or new symptoms after cervical spine reconstruction can be effectively treated with revision surgery after identifying the etiology, and completing the appropriate workup.

Keywords

cervical revision pseudarthrosis adjacent segment

Introduction

Revision rates for surgery on the cervical spine can be high, and vary by the type of procedure performed. For anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), the 2-year revision rate ranges from 2.1% to 9.13% for single level surgery, and from 4.4% to 10.7% for multilevel ACDF [44, 53]. For these procedures, the most common reason for revision surgery is adjacent segment disease, which has an average incidence of new symptoms between 1.6% to 4.2% per year [19, 26]. Reoperation rates in patients undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty is reported to range from 1.8% to 5.4% at 2 years [3, 32] to 2.9% at 5-year follow-up [51, 59]. For posterior procedures, the revision rate after cervical foraminotomy has been reported to range from 2.9% at 7 years [11] to 5% at 31.7 months [54] compared to laminoplasty with a revision rate ranging from 2.1% at 15 years [42] to 13% at 42.3 months, and laminectomy and fusion which has a revision rate ranging from 2% [55] to 27% at 41.3 months [18]. These high revision rates emphasize the need for surgeons to have a thorough understanding of the etiology of post-surgical pathology, as well as a treatment algorithm when evaluating a patient who has undergone prior cervical spine surgery.

The purpose of this article is to review MEDLINE literature after 1993 in order to (1) identify and review the important aspects in the diagnosis and evaluation of patients after failed cervical spine reconstruction and (2) to describe a treatment algorithm when addressing failed cervical spine reconstruction.

Methods

We performed a MEDLINE (PubMed) search for “cervical” and “spine” and “revision” which returned 353 articles from 1993 through January 22, 2014. Abstracts were analyzed for relevance and 32 articles were included.

Results

Of the articles reviewed, there was variation in the rates of revision surgery based on procedure type, as well as revision strategy. The focus of the articles in regards to diagnosis and evaluation of patients undergoing revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction included: history and physical exam, imaging, sagittal alignment, laboratory testing, and recurrent laryngeal nerve evaluation. The surgical approaches and treatment algorithm depend on the etiology for revision, which were most commonly: infection, adjacent segment disease, recurrent symptoms, kyphosis, and pseudarthrosis.

Evaluation (History and Physical Exam)

A detailed history and physical exam is crucial when evaluating a patient for possible revision cervical spine surgery. Regardless of whether or not the initial procedure was completed by another surgeon or yourself, the same treatment approach should be used, including a reassessment of the indications for the initial procedure. In addition to understanding the patient's current symptoms, the surgeon must understand why the initial surgery was done, and if any relief was obtained after the index procedure. A review of clinical notes from the initial surgeon may also be helpful in elucidating specific physical exam findings as well as the impression and treatment plan prior to the primary surgery. Operative reports, including the type of instrumentation used, as well as details of the postoperative course such as length of hospital stay, clinical impression, or lab work which raises concern for infection, dysphagia, hoarseness, and any other complications are also important for future surgical planning. Current signs or symptoms of myelopathy, progressive weakness, weight loss, fever, chills, nausea, or vomiting may be indicative of a condition requiring an urgent intervention. Medical comorbidities and smoking and alcohol history should be evaluated and optimized before any non-urgent procedure, including nutritional evaluation if necessary.

To complement the routine physical exam done for all cervical spine evaluations, attention to the previous incision is important to identify wound healing deficiencies and to suggest the presence of infection through drainage or erythema, fluctuance, pain on palpation, or underlying masses. Signs of poor nutrition should elicit further workup for metabolic disorders such as vitamin deficiencies. The side, orientation, and size of the initial incision, along with any vocal cord dysfunction will guide planning for revision procedures. If upper extremity symptoms are present, the shoulder, elbow, and wrist should be thoroughly evaluated, and peripheral compressive neuropathies should be excluded.

Imaging

Initial imaging for revision cervical spine surgery includes standing anteroposterior, lateral, and flexion/extension radiographs. Full-length radiographs may be important when addressing cervical deformity which impacts overall coronal and sagittal balance. Radiographs will allow measurement of local kyphosis/lordosis based on Cobb angle, as well as an assessment of motion through an attempted fusion site, and overall range of motion on the flexion/extension films. Plain radiographs will show implant failure such as screw or rod breakage, as well as lucencies around screws indicative of pseudarthrosis. Computed tomography (CT) provides fine bony detail and further assessment of fusion status.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides information about disc integrity, neural elements, bony structures, as well as the surrounding soft tissue structures. Determining the difference between scar tissue, disc tissue, and fluid collections, which may raise concern for infection, can be difficult, and MRI with and without gadolinium can help differentiate. Scar tissue will enhance on T1-weighted images after the administration of gadolinium and disc material and fluid collections will not.

Sagittal Alignment

Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine is an important parameter that can effect quality of life [39], and full-length standing radiographs should be obtained if this is a potential concern. There are multiple methods to measure cervical spine alignment, and the Cobb angle of C2-C7 ranges from 9.6° [16] to 14.4° of lordosis in the normal patient [58] (see Fig. 1a). Almost 2/3 of load transmission occurs through the posterior columns [35]. Kyphotic malalignment of the cervical spine can occur after surgery, especially if a laminectomy is performed in patients with pre-existing kyphosis [21, 30, 43]. The cervical sagittal vertical axis (SVA) is a measurement of translation, which can either be measured globally from C2 or C7 to the posterior superior sacrum, or regionally within the cervical spine from C2 to C7 [39] (see Fig. 1b). The chin–brow vertical angle (CBVA) is a measure of horizontal gaze, and should also be considered when planning the correction of a kyphotic deformity, particularly in patients with ankylosing spondylitis [48].

Fig. 1

a C2-C7 Cobb angle is measured as the intersection of lines perpendicular to the inferior endplate of C2 and the inferior endplate of C7. b C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) is measured as the distance from a plumb line from the center of C2 to the posterior superior aspect of the C7 body.

Laboratory Testing

Concerns for infection at any time point after surgery should prompt evaluation with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and complete white blood cell count (WBC) with differential. In the normal postoperative period, CRP and ESR will peak on the third and fourth day, respectively, then CRP will decrease rapidly, and ESR will gradually decrease [24]. Both can still be elevated at 14 days after surgery, and ESR can remain elevated for up to 6 weeks [24]. A second rise in CRP, or a failure of CRP to decrease is concerning for infection [31] When treating an infection after surgery, the CRP level is more indicative of response to antibiotic treatment, as ESR may continue to be elevated [23]. Procalcitonin levels have also been studied as potential markers for infection [10, 34]; however, the exact relationship to infected spine wounds is not clear at this time.

In patients with a history of dysphagia, nutritional markers such as albumin and total lymphocyte count may reveal malnutrition that should be corrected prior to revision surgery if possible. In a database review of patients undergoing spine fusion, patients with an albumin level of 3.5 g/dL or less have higher mortality rate than those with levels higher than 3.5 g/dL (OR 13.8, 95% CI, 4.6–41.6; p < 0.001) [40]. Vitamin D deficiency is also common, and has been reported in up to 27% of adults undergoing spinal fusion [47].

Additional Testing

For revision surgery after anterior cervical approaches, the recurrent laryngeal nerve should be assessed, as the incidence of symptoms after primary surgery is 2.7%, and increases dramatically to 9.5% to 10.5% after revision anterior cervical surgery [4, 12]. Asymptomatic recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy detected by laryngoscopy is even more common, with rates up to 15.9% after primary anterior cervical spine surgery [20]. If there is a history of dysphonia, patients should be evaluated by an otolaryngologist to determine if there is a recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, and subsequent partial or complete vocal cord paralysis. If the vocal cords are normal, the revision procedure may be done from either side. If there is vocal cord paralysis, the approach should be done on the ipsilateral side to avoid injury to the normal side [36]. Any prolonged history of dysphagia also warrants a preoperative otolaryngology consult to evaluate the integrity of the esophagus. Prominent or loose anterior instrumentation in the setting of dysphagia raises the concern of an unrecognized esophageal injury, and intraoperative otolaryngology help may be needed for evaluation of the esophagus. In one series, the rate of acute esophageal perforation during ACDF was low (0.3%) [14], but can be fatal. Late presentation can present years after surgery as dysphagia with the presence of an abscess [9], or be asymptomatic with migrated hardware [38].

Surgical Planning

After completing the appropriate workup, the most common etiologies of pain or disability after cervical spine surgery should be apparent. These include adjacent segment disease, pseudarthrosis, same segment disease, progressive deformity, infection, or a combination of these diagnoses. Although radiographic evidence of adjacent segment degeneration is common after prior cervical spine surgery, the cause of symptoms may be multifactorial, and should not be immediately attributed to adjacent segment disease.

Infection

Infection should always be in the differential diagnosis when evaluating patients with prior cervical spine surgery. As discussed earlier, the laboratory and MRI workup can aid in diagnosis. Early infection can present as a draining wound or fluid collection, and should be treated with urgent irrigation and debridement, with attempted hardware retention if possible. Intraoperative cultures should be taken to help guide antibiotic treatment. Repeat debridements may be necessary depending on the severity and virulence of the pathogen, and condition of the soft tissues. A vacuum-assisted closure dressing may help temporarily, and drains should be used as necessary.

Late infection may present with increasing pain and/or neurologic symptoms. Instrumentation loosening should also raise concern for infection. Loose instrumentation should be removed and, depending on the stability and condition of the spine, new instrumentation may be necessary for stabilization. The overall alignment of the spine, assessment of fusion, and presence of adjacent segment disease should also be evaluated and addressed as needed. Intravenous antibiotics will likely be necessary for 6–8 weeks in the case of infection with antibiotic choice based on the intraoperative cultures.

Adjacent Segment Disease

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is common after cervical spine surgery. After anterior cervical arthrodesis, the rate is approximately 2.9% per year [19], and after a second cervical fusion, the incidence of ASD is up to 25%[56]. A recent systematic review found the average incidence of adjacent segment degeneration, which is a radiographic finding and may be asymptomatic, to be 47.33% and ASD to be 11.99% (average follow-up of 106.5 months, range 50.4 to 253.2 months) [7]. The high incidence of ASD is likely multifactorial, due to natural history and biomechanical effects. While the biomechanical effects of an anterior fusion procedure increased intradiscal pressure and motion at adjacent levels [13], this alone likely does not entirely explain ASD. Patients undergoing posterior laminoforaminotomy develop both same-level degeneration and ASD, suggesting more than just biomechanics contributes to this condition [11, 17, 54]. In patients undergoing ACDF, disc degeneration on preoperative MRI was found to be more common at levels adjacent to the operative level compared to non-adjacent levels, also suggesting that the natural history contributes to ASD [29].

Surgical techniques can also contribute to adjacent segment degeneration. Placing a plate within 5 mm of the adjacent level has been associated with ossification of that level [37]. Similarly, placing a localizing needle at the incorrect adjacent level leads to a threefold increase in adjacent segment degeneration [33]. Along with unnecessary soft tissue dissection, these technical mistakes are potentially avoidable etiologies for the development of ASD and should be avoided as much as possible.

Revision surgery for adjacent segment disease should also evaluate the fusion status of the original interbody space if the index procedure was an ACDF or the posterolateral fusion mass if the procedure was a posterior fusion. Anterior plates will likely need to be revised to include the adjacent segment, and any neural compression should be addressed.

Recurrent Symptoms

For patients with recurrent symptoms after a period of relief, or patients who never experienced relief after the initial procedure, the same segment should be evaluated for recurrent stenosis or incomplete decompression of stenosis. Peripheral compressive neuropathy should also be ruled out, as these can mimic recurrent disease. CT and MRI are used to localize compressive lesions. Sagittal alignment should be assessed, which can be affected by collapsed or subsided grafts or cages.

In addition to symptoms being caused by recurrent or incompletely relieved stenosis, other more rare causes of neurologic deficit should be considered, especially when imaging studies do not explain the clinical presentation. The differential diagnosis may include diabetic neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, vitamin B12 deficiency, syringomyelia, and intracranial pathology [1]. Irreversible spinal cord and nerve root damage should be considered, and patients should be counseled about the possibility of not fully recovering function, regardless of the treatment offered. High-intensity spinal cord signal with a well-defined border on T2-weighted MR images, along with low signal intensity change on T1-weighted images, are indicative of a poor surgical outcome [8, 49].

Once the underlying diagnosis is made, surgical planning should define the overall goals of the revision surgery and the approach. An anterior approach should be used to address compression from anterior structures, including the PLL and uncovertebral joints. Multilevel compression with neutral or kyphotic alignment necessitates either multiple ACDFs or an anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). Kyphosis may be better corrected with multiple ACDFs; however, if there is an associated pseudarthrosis, there is a higher risk of needing a second-revision surgery with anterior procedures compared to posterior procedures [6]. Posterior instrumentation should be considered with more than three-level anterior fusions. Multilevel corpectomy can also correct a kyphotic deformity to neutral, and should also be stabilized posteriorly if more than two levels are involved, due to a high risk of graft dislodgement [52]. Patients with neutral or lordotic alignment can have laminectomy and fusion to address multiple segments if instability is a concern, or laminoplasty and/or foraminotomies if no significant neck pain or instability is present.

Kyphosis

Kyphosis is common after laminectomy without fusion, occurring in up to 21% of cases [22]. Pre-existing kyphosis, facetectomies, and older age increases the likelihood of kyphosis [2]. The loss of sagittal alignment shifts the weight-bearing axis anteriorly, which can cause muscular fatigue and pain as well as spinal cord draping and neural compromise. The goals of surgery are to lengthen the anterior column and to shorten or relatively shorten the posterior column in order to correct the overall sagittal alignment. Flexion and extension radiographs can help determine if the deformity is rigid or fixed, which will affect surgical planning. CT scan will evaluate the location and integrity of fusion masses and ankylosed bone, which may necessitate a corrective osteotomy. If a patient can correct to neutral on extension radiographs, either an anterior or posterior only approach may be used. Posterior arthrodesis can be performed if there are no anterior compressive structures, and laminoforaminotomies should be added as needed to prevent root compression as the neck is extended. Anterior-only multilevel ACDF is preferred for flexible deformity with anterior compression, because of the ability to increase lordosis up to 20° [46]. For fixed deformities, a combined anterior/posterior approach, with or without osteotomies may be necessary in order to restore sagittal balance and decompress the spinal cord.

Pseudarthrosis

The rate of pseudarthrosis increases with multiple fusion levels, and pain is the most common presenting symptom [5]. In multilevel anterior cervical fusion, the pseudarthrosis most commonly occurs at the lowest fusion level, and even with BMP-2 augmentation, the rate is approximately 10% [41]. After laminectomy and fusion, the pseudarthrosis rate was found to range from 1% to 38% in a recent systematic review [57]. Flexion and extension radiographs and CT scan can evaluate the fusion site (Fig. 2). Using a cutoff value of more than 4° of intervertebral body motion on flexion/extension radiographs has been demonstrated to have a high positive predictive value for diagnosing pseudarthrosis [15]. Determining anterior cervical fusion on CT scan can be difficult, and a recent study found that extra-graft-bone bridging is much more accurate and reliable to determine fusion than intra-graft-bone bridging [45]. As stated earlier, evaluation of potential contributing factors for pseudarthrosis, such as infection, medical comorbidities, malnutrition, and smoking status should be undertaken and corrected if possible before revision surgery. If patients are asymptomatic, treatment of pseudarthrosis may be nonoperative.

Fig. 2

Flexion (a) and extension (b) radiographs of a 47-year-old female smoker who underwent C4-C7 ACDF and developed a painful pseudarthrosis at C4-C5. Postoperative flexion (c) and extension (d) radiographs after revision procedure of posterior C4-C5 decompression and C4-C7 fusion.

For patients with neck pain, neurologic symptoms, or instability, operative treatment is indicated. In patients with anterior cervical pseudarthrosis, either an anterior revision procedure [50], or a posterior fusion procedure can lead to good results [25, 27]. A combined anterior/posterior procedure may be necessary to achieve stability in some cases. The fusion rates for posterior revision surgery is reported to be much higher (94%–98%) compared to anterior revision (44%–45%); however, complication rates are lower anteriorly [6, 28]. In patients with a prior posterior decompression, an anterior revision procedure is preferred if possible to avoid the exposed dura posteriorly. Regardless of approach used, all fibrous nonunion tissue should be removed, bone graft or bone graft substitute should be added as necessary, and rigid fixation should be obtained.

Discussion

With the ongoing development of surgical techniques and devices for the cervical spine, there will be a need for revision surgery. It is important for clinicians to understand the evaluation and diagnosis of patients after failed cervical spine reconstruction, as well as to have a consistent treatment algorithm when addressing failed cervical spine reconstruction. The literature reports wide ranges of rates for revision cervical spine surgery, likely due to the inherent differences in procedures, as well as variability of indications for revision surgery between clinicians. Randomized controlled trials to determine the optimal approach for revision surgery would be beneficial, however, these studies are difficult to complete.

Our treatment algorithm for revision cervical spine reconstruction includes a thorough history and physical exam and review of the initial indication for surgery, and inquiry as to whether or not a pain-free interval was ever obtained after surgery (Fig. 3). If concerns for pseudarthrosis exist at 6 months from surgery, flexion/extension radiographs are obtained, and possibly, a CT scan. If radiculopathy or neural compression is evident from history or physical exam, an MRI is obtained. If there is concern for infection, ESR, CRP, and CBC with differential are ordered, as well as an MRI with gadolinium.

Fig. 3

Flow chart describing our treatment algorithm for cervical spine revision surgery (see Discussion for narrative) flex/ext-flexion/extension; CT computed tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, CBC with diff-complete blood count with differential, ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CRP c-reactive protein, ASD adjacent segment disease.

Our approach to revision cervical spine surgery depends on the etiology. In cases of postoperative kyphosis, our operative strategy is to lengthen the anterior column and shorten the posterior column, which is usually performed with anterior–posterior procedures. Occasionally, for cases with a fixed deformity, posterior–anterior–posterior approaches are used to explore and perform osteotomies, if necessary, followed by anterior release and decompression, and then instrumentation posteriorly. In cases of ASD without deformity, the approach is dependent on the location of the neural compression. In pseudarthrosis cases after prior ACDF without deformity, we prefer attempting a posterior fusion. For anterior revision procedures, we evaluate the vocal cords, and if normal, we prefer to approach the spine from the contralateral side to avoid the scarring.

Revision cervical spine surgery is common, with rates varying depending on the initial procedure performed. Clinicians should have an understanding of the most common causes for revision surgery, as well as have an approach for the evaluation and treatment of these complex cases.

Electronic supplementary material

Electronic supplementary material, 11420_2014_9394_MOESM1_ESM - Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction

Electronic supplementary material, 11420_2014_9394_MOESM1_ESM for Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction by, Koerner John D., MD, Kepler Christopher K., MD, MBA, Albert Todd J., MD, in HSS Journal: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery

Electronic supplementary material

Electronic supplementary material, 11420_2014_9394_MOESM2_ESM - Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction

Electronic supplementary material, 11420_2014_9394_MOESM2_ESM for Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction by, Koerner John D., MD, Kepler Christopher K., MD, MBA, Albert Todd J., MD, in HSS Journal: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery

Electronic supplementary material

Electronic supplementary material, 11420_2014_9394_MOESM3_ESM - Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction

Electronic supplementary material, 11420_2014_9394_MOESM3_ESM for Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction by, Koerner John D., MD, Kepler Christopher K., MD, MBA, Albert Todd J., MD, in HSS Journal: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11420-014-9394-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Disclosure

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

John D. Koerner, MD, and Christopher K. Kepler, MD, MBA, have declared that they have no conflict of interest. Todd J. Albert, MD, receives royalties from Depuy and Biomet Spine; receives consultant fees from Depuy and Facetlink; stock option or stocks from K2M, Vertech, In Vivo Therapeutics, Paradigm Spine, Pearldriver, Biomerix, Breakaway Imaging, Crosstree, Invuity, Pioneer, Gentis, ASIP, PMIG, and Spinicity, outside the work.

Human/Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Informed Consent:

N/A

Required Author Forms

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

References

Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology. In: Ropper AS, MA, ed.: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2009.

Albert

Vacarro

Postlaminectomy kyphosis

Spine. 199823 2738–2745

10.1097/00007632-199812150-00014

Anderson

Sasso

Riew

Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis

Spine. 200833 1305–1312

10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817329a1

Beutler

Sweeney

Connolly

Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury with anterior cervical spine surgery risk with laterality of surgical approach

Spine. 200126 1337–1342

10.1097/00007632-200106150-00014

Bohlman

Emery

Goodfellow

Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients

The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume 199375 1298–1307

Carreon

Glassman

Campbell

Treatment of anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis: posterior fusion versus anterior revision

The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 20066 154–156

10.1016/j.spinee.2005.07.003

Carrier CS, Bono CM, Lebl DR. Evidence-based analysis of adjacent segment degeneration and disease after ACDF: a systematic review. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2013.

Chen

Lyu

Lee

Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity

Radiology. 2001221 789–794

10.1148/radiol.2213010365

Christiano

Goldstein

Late prevertebral abscess after anterior cervical fusion

Spine. 201136 E798–802

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181fc9b09

10.

Chung

Won

Kwon

Comparison of serum CRP and procalcitonin in patients after spine surgery

Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society. 201149 43–4810.3340/jkns.2011.49.1.433070894

11.

Clarke

Ecker

Krauss

Same-segment and adjacent-segment disease following posterior cervical foraminotomy

Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. 20076 5–9

10.3171/spi.2007.6.1.2

12.

Coric

Branch

Jr Jenkins

Revision of anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis with anterior allograft fusion and plating

Journal of neurosurgery. 199786 969–974

10.3171/jns.1997.86.6.0969

13.

Eck

Humphreys

Lim

Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion

Spine. 200227 2431–2434

10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003

14.

Fountas

Kapsalaki

Nikolakakos

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications

Spine. 200732 2310–2317

10.1097/BRS.0b013e318154c57e

15.

Ghiselli

Wharton

Hipp

Prospective analysis of imaging prediction of pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: computed tomography versus flexion-extension motion analysis with intraoperative correlation

Spine. 201136 463–468

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d7a81a

16.

Hardacker

Shuford

Capicotto

Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms

Spine. 199722 1472–1480

10.1097/00007632-199707010-00009

17.

Herkowitz

Kurz

Overholt

Surgical management of cervical soft disc herniation. A comparison between the anterior and posterior approach

Spine. 199015 1026–1030

10.1097/00007632-199015100-00009

18.

Highsmith

Dhall

Haid

Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion

Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. 201114 619–625

19.

Hilibrand

Carlson

Palumbo

Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 199981 519–528

20.

Jung

Schramm

Lehnerdt

Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy during anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study

Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. 20052 123–127

10.3171/spi.2005.2.2.0123

21.

Kamioka

Yamamoto

Tani

Postoperative instability of cervical OPLL and cervical radiculomyelopathy

Spine. 198914 1177–1183

10.1097/00007632-198911000-00008

22.

Kaptain

Simmons

Replogle

Incidence and outcome of kyphotic deformity following laminectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Journal of neurosurgery. 200093 199–204

10.3171/jns.2000.93.3.0513

23.

Khan

Smith

Rao

Serum C-reactive protein levels correlate with clinical response in patients treated with antibiotics for wound infections after spinal surgery

The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 20066 311–315

10.1016/j.spinee.2005.07.006

24.

Kong

Kim

Park

Postoperative changes of early-phase inflammatory indices after uncomplicated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using allograft and demineralised bone matrix

International orthopaedics. 201236 2293–22973479300

25.

Kuhns

Geck

Wang

An outcomes analysis of the treatment of cervical pseudarthrosis with posterior fusion

Spine. 200530 2424–2429

10.1097/01.brs.0000184314.26543.7d

26.

Lawrence

Hilibrand

Brodt

Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: a systematic review

Spine. 201237 S52–64

10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d60fb

27.

Liu

Ploumis

Schwender

Posterior cervical lateral mass screw fixation and fusion to treat pseudarthrosis of anterior cervical fusion

Journal of spinal disorders & techniques. 201225 138–141

10.1097/BSD.0b013e31821532a5

28.

Lowery

Swank

McDonough

Surgical revision for failed anterior cervical fusions. Articular pillar plating or anterior revision?

Spine. 199520 2436–2441

10.1097/00007632-199511001-00012

29.

Lundine KM, Davis G, Rogers M, Staples M, Quan G. Prevalence of adjacent segment disc degeneration in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion based on pre-operative MRI findings. Journal of clinical neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2013.

30.

Mikawa

Shikata

Yamamuro

Spinal deformity and instability after multilevel cervical laminectomy

Spine. 198712 6–11

10.1097/00007632-198701000-00002

31.

Mok

Pekmezci

Piper

Use of C-reactive protein after spinal surgery: comparison with erythrocyte sedimentation rate as predictor of early postoperative infectious complications

Spine. 200833 415–421

10.1097/BRS.0b013e318163f9ee

32.

Murrey

Janssen

Delamarter

Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease

The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 20099 275–286

10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006

33.

Nassr

Lee

Bashir

Does incorrect level needle localization during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion lead to accelerated disc degeneration?

Spine. 200934 189–192

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181913872

34.

Nie

Jiang

Procalcitonin as an early predictor of postoperative infectious complications in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury

Spinal cord. 201149 715–720

10.1038/sc.2010.190

35.

Pal

Sherk

The vertical stability of the cervical spine

Spine. 198813 447–449

10.1097/00007632-198805000-00001

36.

Paniello

Martin-Bredahl

Henkener

Preoperative laryngeal nerve screening for revision anterior cervical spine procedures

The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology. 2008117 594–597

10.1177/000348940811700808

37.

Park

Cho

Riew

Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 200587 558–563

38.

Pompili

Canitano

Caroli

Asymptomatic esophageal perforation caused by late screw migration after anterior cervical plating: report of a case and review of relevant literature

Spine. 200227 E499–502

10.1097/00007632-200212010-00016

39.

Scheer

Tang

Smith

International Spine Study G. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review

Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. 201319 141–159

10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12838

40.

Schoenfeld

Carey

Cleveland

3rd

Patient factors, comorbidities, and surgical characteristics that increase mortality and complication risk after spinal arthrodesis: a prognostic study based on 5,887 patients

The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 201313 1171–1179

10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.071

41.

Shen

Buchowski

Yeom

Pseudarthrosis in multilevel anterior cervical fusion with rhBMP-2 and allograft: analysis of one hundred twenty-seven cases with minimum two-year follow-up

Spine. 201035 747–753

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f46352

42.

Shigematsu H, Koizumi M, Matsumori H, Iwata E, Kura T, Okuda A, Ueda U, Tanaka Y. Revision surgery after cervical laminoplasty: report of five cases and literature review. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2013.

43.

Sim

Svien

Bickel

Swan-neck deformity following extensive cervical laminectomy. A review of twenty-one cases

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 197456 564–580

44.

Singh

Phillips

Park

Factors affecting reoperations after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion within and outside of a Federal Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical disc replacement trial

The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 201212 372–378

10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.005

45.

Song KS, Chaiwat P, Kim HJ, Mesfin A, Park SM, Riew KD. Anterior cervical fusion assessment using reconstructed CT-scans: surgical confirmation of 254 segments. Spine. 2013.

46.

Steinmetz

Kager

Benzel

Ventral correction of postsurgical cervical kyphosis

Journal of neurosurgery. 200398 1–7

10.3171/jns.2003.98.1.0001

47.

Stoker

Buchowski

Bridwell

Preoperative vitamin D status of adults undergoing surgical spinal fusion

Spine. 201338 507–515

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182739ad1

48.

Suk

Kim

Lee

Significance of chin-brow vertical angle in correction of kyphotic deformity of ankylosing spondylitis patients

Spine. 200328 2001–2005

10.1097/01.BRS.0000083239.06023.78

49.

Tetreault

Dettori

Wilson

Systematic review of magnetic resonance imaging characteristics that affect treatment decision making and predict clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Spine. 201338 S89–S110

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eae0

50.

Tribus

Corteen

Zdeblick

The efficacy of anterior cervical plating in the management of symptomatic pseudoarthrosis of the cervical spine

Spine. 199924 860–864

10.1097/00007632-199905010-00005

51.

Vaccaro

Beutler

Peppelman

Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study

Spine. 201338 2227–2239

10.1097/BRS.0000000000000031

52.

Vaccaro

Falatyn

Scuderi

Early failure of long segment anterior cervical plate fixation

Journal of spinal disorders. 199811 410–415

53.

Veeravagu A, Cole T, Jiang B, Ratliff JK. Revision rates and complication incidence in single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures: an administrative database study. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2013.

54.

Wang TY, Lubelski D, Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Rates of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion after initial posterior cervical foraminotomy. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2013.

55.

Woods

Hohl

Lee

Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2011469 688–69510.1007/s11999-010-1653-53032861

56.

Xu R, Bydon M, Macki M, De la Garza-Ramos R, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A. Adjacent segment disease after ACDF: Clinical outcomes after first repeat surgery versus second repeat surgery. Spine. 2013.

57.

Yoon

Hashimoto

Raich

Outcomes after laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy: a systematic review

Spine. 201338 S183–194

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb7c

58.

Zdeblick

Zou

Warden

Cervical stability after foraminotomy. A biomechanical in vitro analysis

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 199274 22–27

59.

Zigler

Delamarter

Murrey

ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study

Spine. 201338 203–209

10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278eb38