Skip to main content

Revision surgery in cervical spine

Abstract

Purpose

To report the indications, presurgical planning, operative techniques, complications for making decisions in cervical revision surgery (CRS).

Methods

Hundred and two patients underwent CRS over a four-year period. Epidemiological data, the type of first surgery, CRS surgical techniques and complications were retrospectively evaluated. Pain and neurological symptoms were assessed according to the validated Odom criteria. CRS indications were classified into five categories: adjacent segment disease (ASD), infection (INF), implant failure–pseudarthrosis (IFP), non-infectious complication, and deformity. Patients were classified into three groups, according to the approach of the index procedure: anterior, posterior, or 360°.

Results

The mean patient age was 63 years (59% males). ASD (40%), INF (23%), and IFP (22%) were observed in 85% of patients. CRS was performed with the same approach that was used in the index procedure in 64% of the anterior group and in 83% of the posterior group. In the 360° group, 64% of CRSs was performed with a posterior access. The early complication rate was 4.9%. The outcome was excellent in 19 patients (19%), good in 37 patients (36%), satisfactory in 27 patients (26%), and poor in six patients (6%). Thirteen patients (13%) were lost to follow-up. No implants failed radiologically or required surgical revision.

Conclusions

CRS required painstaking planning and mastery of a variety of surgical techniques. The results were rewarding in half and satisfactory in a quarter of the patients. The complication rate was lower than expected. In the most complex cases, referral to a specialized center is recommended.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Wu WJ, Jiang LS, Liang Y, LY Dai (2012) Cage subsidence does not, but cervical lordosis improvement does affect the long-term results of anterior cervical fusion with stand-alone cage for degenerative cervical disc disease: a retrospective study. Eur Spine J 21(7):1374–1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2131-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lee YS, Kim YB, Park SW (2014) Risk factors for postoperative subsidence of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 39(16):1280–1287. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hartig D, Batke J, Dea N, Kelly A, Fisher C, Street J (2015) Adverse events in surgically treated cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 40(5):292–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Cote P, Singh A, Fehlings MG (2016) A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 24:77–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Koerner JD, Kepler CK, Albert TJ (2015) Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction. HSS Journal 11:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-014-9394-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Helgeson MD, Albert TJ (2012) Surgery for failed cervical reconstruction. Spine 37(5):E323–E327. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823ec9de

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Broekema AEH, Molenberg R, Kuijlen JMA, Groen RJM, Reneman MF, Soer R (2019) The Odom criteria: validated at last. A clinimetric evaluation in cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.2016/JBJS.18.00370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Veeravagu A, Cole T, Jiang B, Ratliff JK (2014) Revision rates and complication incidence in single- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures: an administrative database study. Spine J 14:1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sebastian A, Huddleston P, Kakar S, Habermann E, Wagie A, Nassr A (2016) Risk factors for surgical site infection after posterior cervical surgery: an analysis of 5441 patients from the ACS NSQIP 2005–2012. Spine J 16:504–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Okamoto T, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Ito H, Takemoto M, Nakamura T (2012) Mechanical implant failure in posterior cervical spine fusion. Eur Spine J 21:328–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2043-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    O´Neill KR, Neuman B, Peters C, Riew KD (2014) Risk factors for postoperative retropharyngeal hematoma after anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine 39(4):E246–E252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Harman F, Kaptanoglu E, Hasturk AE (2016) Esophageal perforation after anterior cervical surgery: a review of the literature for over a half a century with a demonstrative case and a proposed novel algorithm. Eur Spine J 25:2027–2049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4394-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Halani SH, Baum GR, Riley JP, Pradilla G, Refai D, Rodts GE, Ahmad Fu (2016) Esophageal perforation after anterior cervical spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine 25:285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Syre P, Bohmann LE, Baltuch G, Le Roux P, Welch WC (2014) Cerebrospinal fluid leaks and their management after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 39(16):E936–E943. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    O´Neill KR, Neumann BJ, Peters C, Riew KD (2014) Risk factors for dural tears in the cervical spine. Spine 39(17):E1015–E1020. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Basaran R, Kaner T (2016) C5 nerve root palsy following decompression of cervical spine with anterior versus posterior types of procedures in patients with cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J 25:2050–2059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4567-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Derakhshan A, Lubelski D, Steinmetz M et al (2017) Thoracic duct injury following cervical spine surgery: A multicenter retrospective review. Global spine J. 7(1 Suppl):115S–119S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hsiang J (2011) Wrong-level surgery: a unique problem in spine surgery. Surg Neurol Int. 2:47. https://doi.org/10.4013/2152-7806.79769

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Deinsberger R, Regatschnig R, Ungersböck K (2005) Intraoperative evaluation of bone decompression in anterior cervical spine surgery by three-dimensional fluoroscopy. Eur Spine J 14(7):671–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0852-8

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Tan TP, Govindarajulu AP, Massicotte EM, Venkatraghavan L (2014) Vocal cord palsy after anterior cervical spine surgery: a qualitative systematic review. The Spine J 14:132–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee:2014.02.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Stumpe K, Zanetti M, Weishaupt D, Hodler J, Boos N, Schulthess GK (2002) FDG positron emission tomography for differentiation of degenerative and infectious endplate abnormalities in the lumbar spine detected on MR imaging. AJR 179(5):1151–1157. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Papavero L, Schmeiser G, Boszczyk B, Kawaguchi Y, Mayer M, Olerud C, Pitzen T, Richter M, Riew KD, Yau YH, Kothe R (2019) Degenerative cervical myelopathy: A seven-letter coding system that supports decision making for the surgical approach. Neurospine. https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1938010.005 [Accepted]

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Papavero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 1129 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papavero, L., Lepori, P. & Schmeiser, G. Revision surgery in cervical spine. Eur Spine J 29, 47–56 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06281-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cervical anterior surgery
  • Complications cervical surgery
  • Implant failure cervical surgery
  • Malalignment cervical spine
  • Cervical revision surgery