Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:32:06.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controversies in Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Practice Patterns Among Canadian Surgeons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Gwynedd E. Pickett ,
Jessica Van Soelen  and
Neil Duggal
Gwynedd E. Pickett
Affiliation:
Division of Neurosurgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada
Jessica Van Soelen
Affiliation:
Division of Neurosurgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada
Neil Duggal
Affiliation:
Division of Neurosurgery, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Optimal fusion technique and peri-operative management of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) is unclear.We document current practice patterns among Canadian spinal surgeons regarding the surgical management of single level degenerative cervical spondylosis.

Methods:

We conducted a web-based survey of neurosurgeons and spinal orthopedic surgeons in Canada. We asked questions pertaining to the management of single level cervical degenerative disc disease causing radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, including frequency of fusion following single-level discectomy, preferred fusion technique, indications and frequency of use of anterior plating, and use of an external cervical orthosis following surgery. Demographic factors assessed included training background, type and length of practice.

Results:

Sixty respondents indicated that their practice involved at least 5% spine surgery and were included in further analysis. Neurosurgeons comprised 59% of respondents, and orthopedic surgeons 41%. Fusion was employed 93% of the time following ACD; autologous bone was the preferred fusion material, used in 76% of cases. Neurosurgeons employed anterior cervical plates in 42% of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion cases, whereas orthopedic surgeons used them 70% of the time. External cervical orthoses were recommended for 92% of patients without plates and 61% of patients with plates. Surgeons who had been in practice for less than five years were most likely to be performing spinal surgery, using anterior cervical plates, and recommending the postoperative use of cervical orthoses.

Conclusion:

Practice patterns vary among Canadian surgeons, although nearly all employ fusion and many use instrumentation for single-level ACD. Training background, and type and length of practice influence practice habits.

Type
Other
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 478 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2004

References

1. Haid, RW, Foley, KT, Rodts, GE, Barnes, B. The Cervical Spine Study Group anterior cervical plate nomenclature. Neurosurg Focus 2002; 12(1):Article 15.Google Scholar
2. Lowery, GL, McDonough, RF. The significance of hardware failure in anterior cervical plate fixation. Patients with 2- to 7-year follow-up. Spine 1998; 23:181–187.Google Scholar
3. Cauthen, JC, Kinard, RE, Vogler, JB, et al. Outcome analysis of noninstrumented anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion in 348 patients. Spine 1998; 23:188–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Drew, B, Bhandari, K, Orr, D, Reddy, K, Dunlop, RB. Surgical preference in anterior cervical discectomy: a national survey of Canadian spine surgeons. J Spinal Disord Tech 2002; 15:454–457.Google Scholar
5. Dowd, GC, Wirth, FP. Anterior cervical discectomy: is fusion necessary? J Neurosurg 1999; 90:8–12.Google Scholar
6. Johnson, RM, Owen, JR, Hart, DL, Callahan, RA. Cervical orthoses: a guide to their selection and use. Clin Orthop 1981; 154:34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Troyanovich, SJ, Stroink, AR, Kattner, KA, Dornan, WA, Gubina, I. Does anterior plating maintain cervical lordosis versus conventional fusion techniques? A retrospective analysis of patients receiving single-level fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 2002; 15:69–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Caspar, W, Geisler, FH, Pitzen, T, Johnson, TA. Anterior cervical plate stabilization in one- and two-level degenerative disease: overtreatment or benefit? J Spinal Disord 1998; 11:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Rapoff, AJ, O’Brien, TJ, Ghanayem, AJ, Heisey, DM, Zdeblick, TA. Anterior cervical graft and plate load sharing. J Spinal Disord 1999; 12:45–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Kaiser, MG, Haid, RW, Subach, BR, Barnes, B, Rodts, GE. Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 2002; 50:229–236.Google Scholar
11. Bose, B. Anterior cervical fusion using Caspar plating: analysis of results and review of the literature. Surg Neurol 1998; 49:25–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Savolainen, S, Rinne, J, Hernesniemi, J. A prospective randomized study of anterior single-level cervical disc operations with long-term follow-up: surgical fusion is unnecessary. Neurosurgery 1998; 43:51–55.Google Scholar
13. Sonntag, VK, Klara, P. Controversy in spine care: is fusion necessary after anterior cervical discectomy? Spine 1996; 21:1111–1113.Google Scholar
14. Watters, WC 3rd, Levinthal, R. Anterior cervical discectomy with and without fusion. Results, complications, and long-term follow-up. Spine 1994; 19:2343–2347.Google Scholar
15. Yamamoto, I, Ikeda, A, Shibuya, N, Tsugane, R, Sato, O. Clinical long-term results of anterior discectomy without interbody fusion for cervical disc disease. Spine 1991; 16:272–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Thorell, W, Cooper, J, Hellbusch, L, Leibrock, L. The long-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy with and without intervertebral bone graft placement. Neurosurgery 1998; 43:268–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Bishop, RC, Moore, KA, Hadley, MN. Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg 1996; 85:206–210.Google Scholar
18. Floyd, T, Ohnmeiss, D. A meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 2000; 9:398–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Lofgren, H, Johannsson, V, Olsson, T, Ryd, L, Levander, B. Rigid fusion after Cloward operation for cervical disc disease using autograft, allograft, or xenograft: a randomized study with radiostereometric and clinical follow-up assessment. Spine 2000; 25:1908–1916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Savolainen, S, Usenius, JP, Hernesniemi, J. Iliac crest versus artificial bone grafts in 250 cervical fusions. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1994; 129:54–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Aronson, N, Filtzer, DL, Bugan, M. Anterior cervical fusion by the Smith-Robinson approach. J Neurosurg 1968; 29:397–404.Google Scholar
22. Arrington, ED, Smith, WJ, Chambers, HG, Bucknell, AL, Davino, NA. Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting. Clin Orthop 1996; 329:300–309.Google Scholar
23. Goulet, JA, Senunas, LE, DeSilva, GL, Greenfield, ML. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop 1997; 339:76–81.Google Scholar
24. Schnee, CL, Freese, A, Weil, RJ, Marcotte, PJ. Analysis of harvest morbidity and radiographic outcome using autograft for anterior cervical fusion. Spine 1997; 22:2222–2227.Google Scholar
25. Malloy, KM, Hilibrand, AS. Autograft versus allograft in degenerative cervical disease. Clin Orthop 2002; 394:27–38.Google Scholar
26. Wenz, B, Oesch, B, Horst, M. Analysis of the risk of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy through bone grafts derived from bovine bone. Biomaterials 2001; 22:1599–1606.Google Scholar
27. Harland, SP, Laing, RJ. A survey of the peri-operative management of patients undergoing anterior cervical decompression in the UK and Eire. Br J Neurosurg 1998; 12:113–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Epstein, NE. Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion without plate instrumentation in 178 patients. J Spinal Disord 2000; 13:1–8.Google Scholar
29. Epstein, NE. Reoperation rates for acute graft extrusion and pseudoarthrosis after one-level anterior corpectomy and fusion with and without plate instrumentation: etiology and corrective management. Surg Neurol 2001; 56:73–80.Google Scholar
30. Savitz, MH. Anterior cervical discectomy without fusion or instrumentation: 25 years’ experience. Mt Sinai J Med 2000; 67:14–17.Google ScholarPubMed
31. Wang, JC, McDonough, PW, Endow, KK, Kanim, LE, Delamarter, RB. The effect of cervical plating on single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord 1999; 12:467–471.Google Scholar
32. Katsuura, A, Hukuda, S, Imanaka, T, Miyamoto, K, Kanemoto, M. Anterior cervical plate used in degenerative disease can maintain cervical lordosis. J Spinal Disord 1996; 9:470–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Wang, JC, McDonough, PW, Endow, KK, Delamarter, RB. Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 2000; 25:41–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Connolly, PJ, Esses, SI, Kostuik, JP. Anterior cervical fusion: outcome analysis of patients fused with and without anterior cervical plates. J Spinal Disord Tech 1996; 9:202–206.Google ScholarPubMed