Schroeder, Gregory D.

Study Design: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical and radiographic outcomes of patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with constructs extending from C2 to T2 to patients with constructs extending from C3 to T1. Summary of Background Data: Limited evidence exists regarding the appropriate level of proximal and distal extension of PCF constructs. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent PCF between 2012 and 2020 was performed. Surgical and radiographic outcomes were compared between those who had C3–T1 or C2–T2 constructs. Results: A total of 155 patients were included in the study (C2–T2: 106 patients, C3–T1: 49 patients). There were no significant differences in demographics or preoperative symptoms between cohorts. Fusion rates were significantly higher in the C2–T2 (93%) than the C3–T1 (80%, P=0.040) cohort. When comparing the C2–T2 to the C3–T1 cohort, the C3–T1 cohort had a significantly greater rate of proximal junctional failure (2% vs. 10%, P=0.006), distal junctional failure (1% vs. 20%, P<0.001) and distal screw loosening (4% vs. 15%, P=0.02). Although ∆C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis increased significantly in both cohorts (C2–T2: 6.2 mm, P=0.04; C3–T1: 8.4 mm, P<0.001), correction did not significantly differ between groups (P=0.32). The C3–T1 cohort had a significantly greater increase in ∆C2 slope (8.0 vs. 3.1 degrees, P=0.03) and ∆C0–C2 Cobb angle (6.4 vs. 1.2 degrees, P=0.04). Conclusion: In patients undergoing PCF, a C2–T2 construct demonstrated lower rates of pseudarthrosis, distal junctional failure, proximal junctional failure, and compensatory upper cervical hyperextension compared with a C3–T1 construct.

Study Design This study is a retrospective case control. Objectives This study aims to determine whether cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is associated with increased baseline neck/arm pain and inferior health quality states compared to a similar population without DS. Methods Patient demographics, pre-operative radiographs, and baseline PROMs were reviewed for 315 patients undergoing anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with at least 1 year of follow-up. Patients were categorized based on the presence (S) or absence of a spondylolisthesis (NS). Statistically significant variables were further explored using multiple linear regression analysis. Results 49/242 (20%) patients were diagnosed with DS, most commonly at the C4–5 level (27/49). The S group was significantly older than the NS group (58.0 ± 10.7 vs 51.9 ± 9.81, P = .001), but otherwise, no demographic differences were identified. Although a higher degree of C2 slope was found among the S cohort (22.5 ± 8.63 vs 19.8 ± 7.78, P = .044), no differences were identified in terms of preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) neck pain or NDI. In the univariate analysis, the NS group had significantly increased VAS arm pain relative to the S group (4.93 ± 3.16 vs 3.86 ± 3.30, P = .045), which was no longer significant in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions Although previous reports have suggested an association between cervical DS and neck pain, we could not associate the presence of DS with increased baseline neck or arm pain. Instead, DS appears to be a relatively frequent (20% in this series) age-related condition reflecting radiographic, rather than necessarily clinical, disease.

The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial with no universally accepted treatment algorithm. Several classification and scoring systems have been developed to assist in surgical decision-making. The most widely accepted are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score (TL AOSIS) with both systems designed to provide a simple objective scoring criteria to guide the surgical or nonsurgical management of complex injury patterns. When used in the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, both of these systems result in safe and consistent patient care. However, there are important differences between the 2 systems, specifically in the evaluation of the complete burst fractures (AOSIS A4) and patients with transient neurological deficits (AOSIS N1). In these circumstances, the AOSpine system may more accurately capture and characterize injury severity, providing the most refined guidance for optimal treatment. With respect to surgical approach, these systems provide a framework for decision-making based on patient neurology and the status of the posterior tension band. Here we propose an operative treatment algorithm based on these fracture characteristics as well as the level of injury.

Purpose: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion has a low but well-established profile of adverse events. The goal of this study was to gauge surgeon opinion regarding the frequency and acceptability of these events. Methods: A 2-page survey was distributed to attendees at the 2015 Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) meeting. Respondents were asked to categorize 18 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion–related adverse events as either: “common and acceptable,” “uncommon and acceptable,” “uncommon and sometimes acceptable,” or “uncommon and unacceptable.” Results were compiled to generate the relative frequency of these responses for each complication. Responses for each complication event were also compared between respondents based on practice location (US vs. non-US), primary specialty (orthopedics vs. neurosurgery) and years in practice. Results: Of 150 surveys distributed, 115 responses were received (76.7% response rate), with the majority of respondents found to be US-based (71.3%) orthopedic surgeons (82.6%). Wrong level surgery, esophageal injury, retained drain, and spinal cord injury were considered by most to be unacceptable and uncommon complications. Dysphagia and adjacent segment disease occurred most often, but were deemed acceptable complications. Although surgeon experience and primary specialty had little impact on responses, practice location was found to significantly influence responses for 12 of 18 complications, with non-US surgeons found to categorize events more toward the uncommon and unacceptable end of the spectrum as compared with US surgeons. Conclusions: These results serve to aid communication and transparency within the field of spine surgery, and will help to inform future quality improvement and best practice initiatives.

Study Design: A multicentered retrospective case series. Objective: To determine the incidence and circumstances surrounding the development of a symptomatic postoperative epidural hematoma in the cervical spine. Methods: Patients who underwent cervical spine surgery between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, at 23 institutions were reviewed, and all patients who developed an epidural hematoma were identified. Results: A total of 16 582 cervical spine surgeries were identified, and 15 patients developed a postoperative epidural hematoma, for a total incidence of 0.090%. Substantial variation between institutions was noted, with 11 sites reporting no epidural hematomas, and 1 site reporting an incidence of 0.76%. All patients initially presented with a neurologic deficit. Nine patients had complete resolution of the neurologic deficit after hematoma evacuation; however 2 of the 3 patients (66%) who had a delay in the diagnosis of the epidural hematoma had residual neurologic deficits compared to only 4 of the 12 patients (33%) who had no delay in the diagnosis or treatment ( P = .53). Additionally, the patients who experienced a postoperative epidural hematoma did not experience any significant improvement in health-related quality-of-life metrics as a result of the index procedure at final follow-up evaluation. Conclusion: This is the largest series to date to analyze the incidence of an epidural hematoma following cervical spine surgery, and this study suggest that an epidural hematoma occurs in approximately 1 out of 1000 cervical spine surgeries. Prompt diagnosis and treatment may improve the chance of making a complete neurologic recovery, but patients who develop this complication do not show improvements in the health-related quality-of-life measurements.

OBJECT In this clinically based systematic review of cervical facet fractures, the authors’ aim was to determine the optimal clinical care for patients with isolated fractures of the cervical facets through a systematic review. METHODS A systematic review of nonoperative and operative treatment methods of cervical facet fractures was performed. Reduction and stabilization treatments were compared, and analysis of postoperative outcomes was performed. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were used. This work was supported through support received from the Association for Collaborative Spine Research and AOSpine North America. RESULTS Eleven studies with 368 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-six patients had bilateral isolated cervical facet fractures and 322 had unilateral isolated cervical facet fractures. Closed reduction was successful in 56.4% (39 patients) and 63.8% (94 patients) of patients using a halo vest and Gardner-Wells tongs, respectively. Comparatively, open reduction was successful in 94.9% of patients (successful reduction of open to closed reduction OR 12.8 [95% CI 6.1–26.9], p < 0.0001); 183 patients underwent internal fixation, with an 87.2% success rate in maintaining anatomical alignment. When comparing the success of patients who underwent anterior versus posterior procedures, anterior approaches showed a 90.5% rate of maintenance of reduction, compared with a 75.6% rate for the posterior approach (anterior vs posterior OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.0–9.4], p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In comparison with nonoperative treatments, operative treatments provided a more successful outcome in terms of failure of treatment to maintain reduction for patients with cervical facet fractures. Operative treatment appears to provide superior results to the nonoperative treatments assessed.

Study Design: Evidence-based systematic review. Objectives: To define the optimal treatment of fractures involving the C2 body, including those with concomitant injuries, based upon a systematic review of the literature. Summary of Background Data: Axis body fractures have customarily been treated nonoperatively, but there are some injuries that may require operative intervention. High-quality literature is sparse and there are few class I or class II studies to guide treatment decisions. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus (EMBASE, MEDLINE, COMPENDEX). The quality of literature was rated according to a grading tool developed by the Center for Evidence-based Medicine. Operative and nonoperative treatment of axis body fractures were compared using fracture bony union as the primary outcome measure. As risk factors for nonunion were not consistently reported, cases were analyzed individually. Results: The literature search identified 62 studies, of which 10 were case reports which were excluded from the analysis. A total of 920 patients from 52 studies were included. The overall bony union rate for all axis body fractures was 91%. Although the majority of fractures were treated nonoperatively, there has been an increasing trend toward operative intervention for Benzel type III (transverse) axis body fractures. Nearly 76% of axis body fractures were classified as type III fractures, of which 88% united successfully. Nearly all Benzel type I and type II axis body fractures were successfully treated nonoperatively. The risk factors for nonunion included: a higher degree of subluxation, fracture displacement, comminution, concurrent injuries, delay in treatment, and older age. Conclusions: High rates for fracture union are reported in the literature for axis body fractures with nonoperative treatment. High-quality prospective studies are required to develop consensus as to which C2 body fractures require operative fixation.