A Comparison of Various Surgical Treatments for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
- PMID: 33375849
- PMCID: PMC9210244
- DOI: 10.1177/2192568220976092
A Comparison of Various Surgical Treatments for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective Cohort.
Objective: To compare the short-term outcomes for Laminoplasty, Laminectomy/fusion, and ACDF.
Methods:
We utilized a prospectively-collected, multi-center national database with a propensity score matching algorithm to compare the short-term outcomes for laminoplasty, laminectomy/fusion, and multi-level (
Results: 546 patients remained after propensity score matching, with 182 patients in each cohort. ACDF required the longest operative time 188 ± 79 versus laminectomy/fusion (169 ± 75, p = 0.017), and laminoplasty (167 ± 66, p = 0.004). ACDF required the shortest hospital stay (LOS ≥ 2: ACDF 56.6%, laminoplasty 89.6%, laminectomy/fusion 93.4%, p < 0.05). ACDF had lower overall complications (ACDF 3.9%, laminoplasty 7.7%, laminectomy/fusion 11.5%, p < 0.05), mortality (ACDF 0%, laminoplasty 0.55%, laminectomy/fusion 2.2%, p < 0.05), and unplanned readmissions (ACDF 4.4%, laminoplasty 4.4%, laminectomy/fusion 9.9%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were seen in the other outcomes including DVT/PT, acute renal failure, UTI, stroke, cardiac complications, or sepsis. In the multivariate analysis, laminectomy/fusion (OR 17, reference: ACDF) and laminoplasty (OR10, reference: ACDF) were strong independent risk factors for LOS ≥ 2 days. Laminectomy/fusion (OR 3.2, reference: ACDF) was an independent predictor for any adverse events 30-days after surgery.
Conclusions: Laminectomy/fusion carries the highest risk for morbidity, mortality, and unplanned readmissions in the short-term postoperative period. Laminoplasty and ACDF cases carry similar short-term complications risks. ACDF is significantly associated with the longest operative duration and shortest LOS without an increase in individual or overall complications, readmissions, or reoperations.
Keywords: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; cervical laminectomy and fusion; cervical laminoplasty; cervical spondylotic myelopathy; degenerative cervical myelopathy; posterior cervical fusion.
Conflict of interest statement
References
-
- Marquez-Lara A, Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Singh K. Current trends in demographics, practice, and in-hospital outcomes in cervical spine surgery: a national database analysis between 2002 and 2011. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(6):476–481. - PubMed
-
- Lad SP, Patil CG, Berta S, Santarelli JG, Ho C, Boakye M. National trends in spinal fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neuro. 2009;71(1):66–69; discussion 69. - PubMed
-
- Oglesby M, Fineberg SJ, Patel AA, Pelton MA, Singh K. Epidemiological trends in cervical spine surgery for degenerative diseases between 2002 and 2009. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(14):1226–1232. - PubMed
-
- Chen YC, Kuo CH, Cheng CM, Wu JC. Recent advances in the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: bibliometric analysis and surgical perspectives. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(3):299–309. - PubMed
-
- Badhiwala JH, Ahuja CS, Akbar MA, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy—update and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. 2020;16(2):108–124. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
