Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Three-column osteotomies of the lower cervical and upper thoracic spine: comparison of early outcomes, radiographic parameters, and peri-operative complications in 48 patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate and compare early radiographic and clinical outcomes of lower cervical and upper thoracic three-column osteotomies (3CO) for cervicothoracic kyphosis correction.

Methods

Patients who underwent 3CO at the cervicothoracic junction at two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups: lower cervical osteotomy (LCO) and upper thoracic osteotomy (UTO: T1–T5). Operative data, radiographic alignment, peri-operative complications, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results

Forty-eight patients [male: 24; female: 24; average age 61 years (range 18–92 years); mean follow-up: 22 months] met inclusion criteria. A total of 24 pedicle subtraction osteotomies and 24 vertebral column resections were performed. Compared to UTO, LCO operative time was significantly shorter, average ICU and hospital stays were significantly longer, and the average pre-operative cervical sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and kyphosis were significantly greater (p < 0.05). For both groups, there was significant improvement in cervical SVA, cervical lordosis, segmental angle, Neck Disability Index (NDI), SRS Activity, and pain visual analog score (p < 0.05). Reoperation rates were similar between the groups (LCO: 33.3 %; UTO: 18 %, p = 0.28). Significantly, more patients required tracheostomy/gastrostomy tubes after LCO (3 vs. 0 in the UTO group, p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Three-column posterior osteotomies at the cervicothoracic junction restored regional sagittal alignment and improved quality of life in this series of patients with rigid cervicothoracic deformity, albeit with high complication rates. Lower cervical osteotomies provided greater cervical SVA correction and were shorter operations, although they were associated with more complications and longer hospital and ICU stays compared to upper thoracic osteotomies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abumi K, Shono Y, Taneichi H, Ito M, Kaneda K (1999) Correction of cervical kyphosis using pedicle screw fixation systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2389–2396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK et al (2013) Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:S149–S160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McMaster MJ (1997) Osteotomy of the cervical spine in ankylosing spondylitis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:197–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Simmons ED, DiStefano RJ, Zheng Y, Simmons EH (2006) Thirty-six years experience of cervical extension osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis: techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:3006–3012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferch RD, Shad A, Cadoux-Hudson TAD, Teddy PJ (2004) Anterior correction of cervical kyphotic deformity: effects on myelopathy, neck pain, and sagittal alignment. J Neurosurg 100:13–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tokala DP, Lam KS, Freeman BJC, Webb JK (2007) C7 decancellisation closing wedge osteotomy for the correction of fixed cervico-thoracic kyphosis. Eur Spine J 16:1471–1478

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Rodts GE, Haid RW (2008) Circumferential fusion for cervical kyphotic deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 9:515–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nottmeier EW, Deen HG, Patel N, Birch B (2009) Cervical kyphotic deformity correction using 360-degree reconstruction. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:385–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Deviren V, Scheer JK, Ames CP (2011) Technique of cervicothoracic junction pedicle subtraction osteotomy for cervical sagittal imbalance: report of 11 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 15:174–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Samudrala S, Vaynman S, Thiayananthan T et al (2010) Cervicothoracic junction kyphosis: surgical reconstruction with pedicle subtraction osteotomy and Smith-Petersen osteotomy. Presented at the 2009 Joint Spine Section Meeting. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13(6):695–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoh DJ, Khoueir P, Wang MY (2008) Management of cervical deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. Neurosurg Focus 24:E9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Deviren V et al (2011) Biomechanical analysis of cervicothoracic junction osteotomy in cadaveric model of ankylosing spondylitis: effect of rod material and diameter. J Neurosurg Spine 14:330–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wollowick AL, Kelly MP, Riew KD (2012) Pedicle subtraction osteotomy in the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(5):E342–E348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Paulus MC, Kalantar SB, Radcliff K (2014) Cost and value of spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(5):388–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bridwell KH, Lewis SJ, Rinella A, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Blanke K (2004) Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(suppl 1):44–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Young BA, Walker MJ, Strunce JB, Boyles RE, Whitman JM, Childs JD (2009) Responsiveness of the Neck Disability Index in patients with mechanical neck disorders. Spine J 9:802–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu S, Schwab F, Smith JS et al (2014) Likelihood of reaching minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment. Ochsner J 14:67–77

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK et al (2013) A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19(3):269–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Scheer JK, Tang J a, Smith JS et al (2013) Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 19:141–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS et al (2012) The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 71:662–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Villavicencio AT, Babuska JM, Ashton A et al (2011) Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery 68:1309–1316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Etame AB, Wang AC, Than KD, La Marca F, Park P (2010) Outcomes after surgery for cervical spine deformity: review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 28:E14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koller H, Meier O, Zenner J, Mayer M, Hitzl W (2013) Non-instrumented correction of cervicothoracic kyphosis in ankylosing spondylitis: a critical analysis on the results of open-wedge osteotomy C7–T1 with gradual Halo-Thoracic-Cast based correction. Eur Spine J 22:819–832

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Heller JG, Silcox DH, Sutterlin CE (1995) Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:2442–2448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No funds were received in support of this work.

Conflict of interest

Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work include: royalties (Smith: Biomet; Deviren: Nuvasive; Ames: Stryker, Biomet), board membership (Burch: Medtronic), consultation (Burch: Medtronic; Tay: Stryker; Smith: Cerapedics, Globus, Biomet, Medtronic, Nuvasive, DePuy; Kebaish: DePuy; Deviren: Nuvasive), fellowship support (Tay: Nuvasive, Globus, AO Spine; Smith: AO; NREF), honorarium for lectures (Smith: Biomet, Nuvasive, DePuy, Medtronic), and grants (Theologis: Orthopaedic Research Education Foundation (OREF); Burch: OREF, Omega, AO Spine, Globus, Nuvasive; Ames: Depuy).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA

    Alexander A. Theologis, Ehsan Tabaraee, Shane Burch, Bobby Tay & Vedat Deviren

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Haruki Funao & Khaled Kebaish

  3. Department of Neurologic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, CA, USA

    Justin S. Smith

  4. Department of Neurologic Surgery, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Christopher Ames

Authors
  1. Alexander A. Theologis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ehsan Tabaraee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haruki Funao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin S. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shane Burch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bobby Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Khaled Kebaish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vedat Deviren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Christopher Ames
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander A. Theologis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Theologis, A.A., Tabaraee, E., Funao, H. et al. Three-column osteotomies of the lower cervical and upper thoracic spine: comparison of early outcomes, radiographic parameters, and peri-operative complications in 48 patients. Eur Spine J 24 (Suppl 1), 23–30 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3655-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3655-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation