Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 406–414 | Cite as

Predictive factors for long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a multivariate data analysis

  • Anneli PeolssonEmail author
  • Michael Peolsson
Original Article

Abstract

We conducted a prospective randomized study to investigate predictive factors for short- and long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) as measured by current pain intensity on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and by disability using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Current understanding about how preoperative and short-term outcome data predict long-term outcome is sparse, and there are few studies involving analysis of short-term follow-up using multivariate approaches with quantification of the relative importance of each variable studied. A total of 95 patients were randomly allocated for ACDF with the cervical intervertebral fusion cage or the Cloward procedure. The mean follow-up time was 19 months (range 12–24) for short-term follow-up and 76 months (range 56–94 months) for long-term. Background factors, radiologically detected findings, physiological measurements, treatment type, pain, and disability were used as potential predictors. Multivariate statistical analysis by projection to latent structures was used to investigate predictors of importance for short- and long-term outcome of ACDF. A “preoperative” low disability and pain intensity, non-smoking status, male sex, good hand strength, and an active range of motion (AROM) in the neck were significant predictors for good short- and long-term outcomes. The short-term outcome data were better at predicting long-term outcome than were baseline data. Radiologically detected findings and surgical technique used were mainly insignificant as predictors. We suggest that the inclusion criteria for ACDF should be based on a bio-psycho-social model including NDI. NDI may also be regarded as an important outcome measurement in evaluation of ACDF.

Keywords

Prognostic factors Outcome Cervical radicopathy Cloward Cage 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors especially thank secretary Inga-Lill Lindberg and MD Carl-Henrik Hybbinette for their support. The study has received financial support from the Faculty of Health Sciences at Linköping University and from the Research Council of Southeastern Sweden (FORSS).

References

  1. 1.
    An HS, Silveri CP, Simpson JM, File P, Simmons C, Simeone FA, Balderston RA (1994) Comparison of smoking habits between patients with surgically confirmed herniated lumbar and cervical disc disease and controls. J Spinal Disord 7:369–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J (1995) Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. A prospective multicenter study. Spine 20:2211–2216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 90:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borghouts J, Koes N, Bouter L (1998) The clinical course and prognostic factors of non-specific neck pain, a systematic review. Pain 77:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJHM, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Wadell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eriksen EF, Buhl M, Fode K, Klærke 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 70:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eriksson L, Johansson E, Kettaneh-Wold N, Trygg J, Wikström C, Wold S (2006) Introduction to multi- and megavariate data analysis using projection methods (PCA & PLS). Umetrics, Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gore DR, Sepic SB (1984) Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs: a review of one hundred forty-six patients. Spine 9:667–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamburger C, Festenberg FV, Uhl E (2001) Ventral discectomy with PMMA interbody fusion for cervical disc disease: long-term results in 249 patients. Spine 26:249–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendriks E, Scholten-Peeters G, van der Windt D, Neeleman-van der Steen C, Oostendorp R, Verhagen A (2005) Prognostic factors for poor recovery in acute whiplash patients. Pain 114:408–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson E (1991) A users guide to principal components. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Javid D, Hedlund R, Vavruch L, Leszniewski W (2001) Is the efficacy of the Cloward procedure overestimated? Technique of evaluation affects the outcome. Eur Spine J 10:222–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones E, Hanly JG, Mooney R, Rand LL, Spurway PM, Eastwood BJ, Verrier Jones J (1991) Strength and function in the normal and rheumatoid hand. J Rheumatol 18:1313–1318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kilbom Å (1988) Isometric strength and occupational muscle disorders. Eur Appl Physiol 57:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kjellman G, Skargren E, Öberg B (2002) Prognostic factors for perceived pain and function at one-year follow-up in primary care patients with neck pain. Disabil Rehabil 24:364–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindahl OA, Nyström Å, Boström A (1994) Grip strength of the human hand- measurements on normal subjects with a new hand strength analysis system (Hastras). J Med Eng Technol 18:101–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Löfgren H (2000) Outcome, bone grafts in surgical treatment of cervical disc disease. Dissertation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden, paper VGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Ertzgaard S, Öberg B (2000) Intra- and inter-tester reliability and range of motion of the neck. Physiother Canada 52:233–242Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Öberg B (2001) Intra-and inter-tester reliability and reference values for hand strength. J Rehabil Med 33:36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Öberg B (2001) Intra- and inter-tester reliability and reference values for isometric neck strength. Physther Res Int 6:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Öberg B (2002) Disability after anterior decompression and fusion for cervical disc disease. Adv Physther 4:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L (2004) Prediction of fusion and importance of radiological variables for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J 13:229–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Öberg B (2006) Predictive factors for arm pain, neck pain, neck specific disability and health after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Acta Neurochir 148:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Hedlund R (2007) Long-term randomised comparison between a carbon fibre cage and the Cloward procedure in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 16:173–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peolsson A, Almkvist C, Dahlberg C, Lindqvist S, Pettersson S (2007) Age- and sex-specific reference values of a test of neck muscle endurance. J Manip Physiol Ther 30:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    Scott J, Huskisson EC (1976) Graphic representation of pain. Pain 2:175–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skargren EI, Öberg BE (1998) Predictive factors for 1-year outcome of low-back and neck pain in patients treated in primary care: comparison between the treatment strategies chiropractic and physiotherapy. Pain 77:201–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Udén A, Åström M, Bergenudd H (1988) Pain drawings in chronic back pain. Spine 13:389–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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 27:1694–1701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wold S, Ruhe A, Wold H, Dunn WJ III (1984) The collinearity problem in linear regression. The partial least squares approach o generalized inverses. Siam J Sci Stat Comput 5:735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yue W-M, Brodner W, Highland TR (2005) Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine 30:2138–2144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zoëga B, Kärrholm J, Lind B (2000) Outcome scores in degenerative cervical disc surgery. Eur Spine J 9:137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.School for Technology and HealthRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations