Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 229–234 | Cite as

Prediction of fusion and importance of radiological variables for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion

  • Anneli PeolssonEmail author
  • Rune Hedlund
  • Ludek Vavruch
Original Article

Abstract

In a prospective randomised study with a 2-year follow-up, 103 patients were randomised to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with a cervical carbon-fibre intervertebral fusion cage (CIFC) or the Cloward procedure (CP). The purpose of the present study was to report predictors for fusion and also to investigate the importance of radiological variables for the clinical outcome. Gender, age, smoking habits, disc height, segmental kyphosis and type of surgical procedure were used as independent (before surgery) variables in a multiple regression model. Male gender, one-level surgery and CP treatment were significant predictors of fusion and explained 14% of the variability of fusion status at follow-up. Number of levels operated on, however, did not influence the clinical outcome. Fifty-two per cent of the women and 17% of the men in the CIFC group, and 25% of the women and 8% of the men in the CP group, had pseudarthrosis. Although patients with a healed fusion had significantly less pain intensity than patients with pseudarthrosis, radiological variables explained only 4% of the variability of pain at follow-up. Apart from a significant correlation between preoperative kyphosis and neck disability index at follow-up, no significant correlation between either postoperative kyphosis or preoperative or postoperative disc height and clinical outcome was found. Neither degree of segmental kyphosis nor disc height was different between patients with healed fusion and pseudarthrosis. One can conclude that male gender and type of surgery were significant predictors for a healed fusion and that pseudarthrosis affected outcome. In contrast to the commonly held view based mainly on theoretical considerations, no effect on clinical outcome could be demonstrated for segmental kyphosis and disc height at follow-up. Overall, the study shows that the importance of radiological factors as predictors for fusion as well as clinical outcome is limited.

Keywords

Predisposing factors Treatment outcome Radiology Radiculopathy Surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study received financial support from the Faculty of Health Sciences at Linköping University.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen T, Christensen FB, Laursen M, Høy K, Hansen ES, Bünger C (2001) Smoking as a predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 26:2623–2628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertalanffy H, Eggert HR (1988) Clinical long-term results of anterior discectomy without fusion for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy: a follow-up of 164 cases. Acta Neurochir 90:127–135Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK (1993) Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. J Bone Joint Surg 75A:1298–1307Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–614Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emami A, Deviren V, Berven S, Smith JA, Hu SS, Bradford DS (2002) Outcome and complications of long fusions to the sacrum in adult spine deformity: Luque-Galveston, combined iliac and sacral screws, and sacral fixation. Spine 27:776–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eriksen EF, Buhl M, Fode K, Klaerke A, Krøyer L, Lindeberg H, Madsen CB, Strange L, Wohlert L, Espersen JO (1984) Treatment of cervical disc disease using Cloward’s technique: the prognostic value of clinical preoperative data in 1,106 patients. Acta Neurochir 70:181–197Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gillings D, Koch G (1991) The application of the principle of intention-to-treat to the analysis of clinical trials. Drug Inf J 25:411–424Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gore DR, Sepic SB (1984) Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs: a review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine 9:667–671PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamburger C, Festenberg FV, Uhl E (2001) Ventral discectomy with PMMA interbody fusion for cervical disc disease: long-term results in 249 patients. Spine 26:249–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilibrand AS, Fye MA, Emery SE, Palumbo MA, Bohlman HH (2002) Increased rate of arthrodesis with strut grafting after multilevel anterior cervical decompression. Spine 27:146–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hubach PCG (1994) A prospective study of anterior cervical spondylodesis in intervertebral disc disorders. Eur Spine J 3:209–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Javid D, Hedlund R, Vavruch L, Leszniewski W (2001) Is the efficacy of the Cloward procedure overestimated? Eur Spine J 10:222–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jevon M, Sabokbar A, Fujikawa Y, Hirayama T, Neale SD, Wass J, Athanasou NA (2002) Gender- and age-related differences in osteoclast formation from circulating precursors. J Endocrinol 172:673–681PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linovitz RJ, Pathria M, Bernhardt M, Green D, Law MD, McGuire RA, Montesano PX, Rechtine G, Salib RM, Ryaby JT, Faden JS, Ponder R, Muenz LR, Magee FP, Garfin SA (2002) Combined magnetic fields accelerate and increase spine fusion: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study. Spine 27:1383–1389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lunsford LD, Bissonette DJ, Jannetta PJ, Sheptak PE, Zorub DS (1980) Anterior surgery for cervical disc disease, part 1: treatment of lateral cervical disc herniation in 253 cases. J Neurosurg 53:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Odom GL, Finney W (1958) Cervical disk lesions. JAMA 166:23–28Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Öberg B (2001) Intra- and inter-tester reliability and reference values for isometric neck strength. Physiother Res Int 6:15–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L, Öberg B (2003) Predictive factors for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J 12:274–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Persson LCG, Carlsson C-A, Carlsson JY (1997) Long-lasting cervical radicular pain managed with surgery, physiotherapy, or a cervical collar: a prospective, randomized study. Spine 7:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD, Ducker T (1999) Outcome in patients with cervical radiculopathy: prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine 24:591–597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scott J, Huskisson EC (1976) Graphic representation of pain. Pain 2:175–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sweet FA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Blanke KM, Whorton J (2001) Prospective radiographic and clinical outcomes and complications of single solid rod instrumented anterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:1956–1965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tabachnik B, Fidell L (1996) Using multivariate statistics. Harper Collins College Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vavruch L, Hedlund R, Javid D, Leszniewski W, Shalabi A (2002) A prospective randomised comparison between the Cloward procedure and a carbon fibre cage in the cervical spine: a clinical and radiological study. Spine 27:1694–1701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Velleman SG, Liu X, Nestor KE, McFarland DC (2000) Heterogeneity in growth and differentiation characteristics in male and female satellite cells isolated from turkey lines with different growth rates. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 125:503–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics, Huddinge HospitalKarolinska InstituteStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Neuro-Orthopaedic SurgeryRyhov HospitalJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations