Aims

The optimal procedure for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of anterior cervical ossified posterior longitudinal ligament en bloc resection (ACOE) with posterior laminectomy and fusion with bone graft and internal fixation (PTLF) for the surgical management of patients with this condition.

Aims. Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition. Methods. Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom’s criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom’s scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss. Conclusion. Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981–996

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) on the risk of re-operation at an adjacent level.

Aims

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mobi-C implant in cervical disc degeneration, a randomised study was conducted, comparing the Mobi-C prosthesis arthroplasty with anterior cervical disc fusion (ACDF) in patients with single level cervical spondylosis.

In a retrospective cohort study we compared the clinical outcome and complications, including dysphagia, following anterior cervical fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylosis using either a zero-profile (Zero-P; Synthes) implant or an anterior cervical plate and cage. A total of 83 patients underwent fusion using a Zero-P and 107 patients underwent fusion using a plate and cage. The mean follow-up was 18.6 months (sd 4.2) in the Zero-P group and 19.3 months (sd 4.1) in the plate and cage group. All patients in both groups had significant symptomatic and neurological improvement. There were no significant differences between the groups in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analogue scores at final follow-up. The cervical alignment improved in both groups. There was a higher incidence of dysphagia in the plate and cage group on the day after surgery and at two months post-operatively. All patients achieved fusion and no graft migration or nonunion was observed.

When compared with the traditional anterior cervical plate and cage, the Zero-P implant is a safe and convenient procedure giving good results in patients with symptomatic cervical spondylosis with a reduced incidence of dysphagia post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:543–7.

Cervical spinal disc replacement is used in the management of degenerative cervical disc disease in an attempt to preserve cervical spinal movement and to prevent adjacent disc overload and subsequent degeneration. A large number of patients have undergone cervical spinal disc replacement, but the effectiveness of these implants is still uncertain. In most instances, degenerative change at adjacent levels represents the physiological progression of the natural history of the arthritic disc, and is unrelated to the surgeon. Complications of cervical disc replacement include loss of movement from periprosthetic ankylosis and ossification, neurological deficit, loosening and failure of the device, and worsening of any cervical kyphosis. Strict selection criteria and adherence to scientific evidence are necessary. Only prospective, randomised clinical trials with long-term follow-up will establish any real advantage of cervical spinal disc replacement over fusion.