Is It Necessary to Extend a Multilevel Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion to the Upper Thoracic Spine?

Study Design. A retrospective cohort analysis. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the revision rate in patients who undergo a multilevel posterior cervical fusions ending at C7, T1, or T2-T4. Summary of Background Data. Multilevel posterior cervical decompression and fusion is a common procedure for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy, but there is little literature available to help guide the surgeon in choosing the caudal level of a multilevel posterior cervical fusion. Methods. Patients who underwent a three or more level posterior cervical fusion with at least 1 year of clinical follow-up were identified. Patients were separated into three groups on the basis of the caudal level of the fusion, C7, T1, or T2-T4, and the revision rate was determined. In addition, the C2-C7 lordosis and the C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was recorded for patients with adequate radiographic follow-up at 1 year. Results. The overall revision rate was 27.8% (61/219 patients); a significant difference in the revision rates was identified between fusions terminating at C7, T1, and T2-T4 (35.3%, 18.3%, and 40.0%, P = 0.008). When additional variables were taken into account utilizing multivariate linear regression modeling, patients whose construct terminated at C7 were 2.29 (1.16–4.61) times more likely to require a revision than patients whose construct terminated at T1 (P = 0.02), but no difference between stopping at T1 and T2-T4 was identified. Conclusion. Multilevel posterior cervical fusions should be extended to T1, as stopping a long construct at C7 increases the rate of revision. Level of Evidence: 3

[1]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Posterior Cervicothoracic Instrumentation: Testing the Clinical Efficacy of Tapered Rods (Dual-Diameter Rods) , 2015, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[2]  J. Buchowski,et al.  Construct Type and Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis at the Cervicothoracic Junction , 2015, Spine.

[3]  Y. Robinson,et al.  Complications and Survival After Long Posterior Instrumentation of Cervical and Cervicothoracic Fractures Related to Ankylosing Spondylitis or Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis , 2015, Spine.

[4]  D. Lindsey,et al.  Biomechanical Determination of Distal Level for Fusions across the Cervicothoracic Junction , 2009, Global spine journal.

[5]  Khalid H. Kurtom,et al.  Cervicothoracic junction instability after cervical fusion. , 2014, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[6]  M. Fehlings,et al.  Anterior Versus Posterior Surgical Approaches to Treat Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Outcomes of the Prospective Multicenter AOSpine North America CSM Study in 264 Patients , 2013, Spine.

[7]  Annie L. Raich,et al.  Neck Pain Following Cervical Laminoplasty: Does Preservation of the C2 Muscle Attachments and/or C7 Matter? , 2013, Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal.

[8]  E. Benzel,et al.  Surgical management of cervical myelopathy dealing with the cervical-thoracic junction. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[9]  J. Shikata,et al.  Long-Term Results Over 10 Years of Anterior Corpectomy and Fusion for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy , 2006, Spine.

[10]  E. Benzel,et al.  Regional instability following cervicothoracic junction surgery. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[11]  A. Saifuddin,et al.  Fractures and Dislocations of the Cervicothoracic Junction , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[12]  R. Heros Spetzler-Martin grades IV and V arteriovenous malformations. , 2003, Journal of neurosurgery.

[13]  E. Benzel,et al.  Ventral correction of postsurgical cervical kyphosis. , 2003, Journal of neurosurgery.

[14]  H. An,et al.  Anatomy of the cervicothoracic junction: a study of cadaveric dissection, cryomicrotomy, and magnetic resonance imaging. , 1999, Journal of spinal disorders.

[15]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  S. Katoh,et al.  Spinal deformity following surgery for spinal cord tumors and tumorous lesions: analysis based on an assessment of the spinal functional curve , 1996, Spinal Cord.

[17]  Jens R. Chapman,et al.  Posterior instrumentation of the unstable cervicothoracic spine. , 1996, Journal of neurosurgery.

[18]  H. An,et al.  Spinal Disorders at the Cervicothoracic Junction , 1994, Spine.