Skip to main content
Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery
Download PDF

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with and without plating versus laminectomy with and without fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective observational study

Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery volume 39, Article number: 50 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a chronic progressive spinal compression that usually accompanies age-related degeneration of the cervical spine and represents one of the most common causes of spinal cord dysfunction. Surgical intervention is the foundation of management in symptomatic cases, but the approach of choice is constantly contentious. The aim of this study is to evaluate and appraise different surgical approaches for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with or without plating and laminectomy with and without fusion) regarding the perioperative data, clinical outcomes, complications rates and radiographic parameters.

Results

In this prospective study, sixty patients in four matched cohorts were followed up. The first group (n = 15) underwent ACDF only, the second group (n = 15) underwent ACDF with anterior plate, the third group (n = 15) underwent laminectomy alone, and the fourth group (n = 15) underwent laminectomy with lateral mass fusion. Patients were followed up for twelve-month duration using modified Japanese orthopedic score (mJOA), neck disability index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) and short form 36 (SF-36) in addition to measurement of C2-C7 cobb`s angle to evaluate postoperative cervical sagittal alignment. All the four groups were associated with functional clinical improvement with no statistically significant differences between them. Postoperative cervical lordosis and its change were highest in anterior groups, both plated (11.1 ± 5.2a, 5.1 ± 4.0a) and non-plated (12.0 ± 5.3a, 4.4 ± 3.2a) (p value < 0.001) with no significant difference between them. Postoperative quality of life score and its change were significantly better in plated anterior approach (55.8 ± 4.8a, 21.6 ± 4.9a) and in non-plated (55.6 ± 3.2a, 21.3 ± 4.0a) (p value < 0.001) with no significant difference between both techniques. Operative time was statistically higher in plated anterior approach (202.1 ± 55.9b) and in laminectomy with fusion (229.2 ± 92.9b) (p value < 0.001) with no statistically significant difference between either group. Posterior approaches were associated with significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (280.0 ± 52.3b for laminectomy and 310.0 ± 60.3b for laminectomy with fusion) (p value < 0.001) with no difference between both techniques. Hospital stay was higher in posterior groups as well, but it was not statistically significant (p value = 0.127).

Conclusions

Both anterior and posterior approaches were associated with significant functional improvements with no difference in complications severity or frequency. Anterior surgery had shorter hospital stay and less blood loss with better quality of life scores and more successful restoration of cervical lordosis.

Background

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) stands as the prevailing cause for spinal cord dysfunction globally. It is a degenerative condition characterized by nontraumatic, gradual and persistent compression of the cervical spinal cord [1]. The prevalence of the disease is higher in males and in the Asian population compared to females and Caucasians, respectively [1]. Evidence from the natural history of CSM indicates that 20–60% of patients may experience neurological deterioration. Therefore, upon diagnosing CSM, decompression surgery should be undertaken to prevent worsening of neural function [2, 3].

Certain factors must be considered when deciding the best approach for a given patient, namely source and location of the compression, number of segments, sagittal alignment, specific anatomy, patient’s complaints and/or history of previous neck surgeries [4].

Anterior approaches are generally preferred when the compression involves three or fewer levels. It allows for direct decompression of anterior pathologies and correction of cervical kyphosis [5]. Plating increases fusion rates with anterior approaches, especially if operating on more than two levels [6].

Posterior approaches are generally reserved for three or more compression levels. Decompression is achieved either directly if the compressive element is posteriorly located or indirectly by allowing the cervical cord to drift posteriorly away from the compressive anterior pathologies [7]. Posterior approaches are most beneficial in the absence of kyphosis; posterior surgery in the presence of kyphotic alignment is associated with worse neurological outcomes [8]. In addition to avoiding kyphotic malalignment, fusion has the added benefit of alleviating axial neck pain [7].

The aim of this study is to evaluate and appraise different surgical approaches for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with or without plating and Laminectomy with and without fusion) regarding the perioperative data, clinical outcomes, complications rates and radiographic parameters.

Methods

This prospective observational study included a total of sixty patients with multilevel CSM. A written informed consent was obtained from all patients participating in this study.

A comprehensive analysis of all patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for CSM in the included hospitals was conducted. Patients fulfilling our inclusion criteria were included in the study. Our inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to ensure that all patients included in the study are matched preoperatively regarding demographic characteristics, preoperative pain and myelopathy scores and preoperative sagittal alignment values. Eighteen patients have been excluded either for not meeting our inclusion criteria or for refusal to participate in the study. The enrolled sixty cases have been assigned to their groups. Patients undergoing anterior approach procedures have been assigned to Group A and have been further divided into Group A1 for ACDF only patients and Group A2 for ACDF with plating. No patients were lost during follow-up in Group A1 while one patient was lost from Group A2. Patients undergoing posterior approach procedures have been assigned to Group B and have been further divided into Group B1 for laminectomy alone and Group B2 for laminectomy with fusion. A single patient has been lost during follow-up in Group B1 while two patients have been lost in Group B2. All groups completed 12-month follow-up. A flow chart is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

study flow chart

Full size image

Inclusion criteria included: a clear picture of CSM by history and examination of degenerative origin in the subaxial cervical spine. MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) findings confirm the presence of cord compression at two or more anatomical levels. Age ≥ 18 years.

Exclusion criteria included: patients whose primary symptom is axial or radicular pain, but not myelopathy, patients with other non-degenerative pathologies such as cervical trauma, tumors, infections or rheumatoid arthritis, or pathologies involving the craniocervical junction, patients with preoperative cervical kyphosis and patients who underwent previous cervical spine surgery.

Preoperatively, the following data were extracted from the patients themselves, their sheets and/or preoperative images: history and physical examination, preoperative pain (axial or radicular) using the visual analogue score (VAS) [9], functional scoring, using the modified Japanese orthopedic association score (mJOA score) [10] and neck disability index (NDI) [11]. If not available, they were extracted using structured telephone interviews, using a pre-designed interview protocol. Quality of life was assessed using the medical outcomes study short form health survey (SF-36) [12].

MRI studies, plain X-ray, including A-P (antero-posterior) and flexion/extension lateral views, and/or CT (computed tomography) scan (to exclude OPLL (ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament)) were done for all patients. Assessment of cervical sagittal alignment from C2 to C7 is carried out using Cobb method [13].

Postoperatively, follow-up visits were done at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. An independent physician not related to the surgical procedures oversaw patient’s evaluation. The following parameters were examined: long-term complications, postoperative mJOA, NDI, VAS and SF-36 as well as recovery ratio (RR), which is calculated by the equation: RR (%) = postoperative mJOA score−preoperative mJOA score/(18−Preoperative mJOA score) × 100.

Radiological outcomes assessment was done utilizing first, the change in lordosis using Cobb method on Plain X-ray lateral view, and second, radiological evaluation of fusion to detect pseudoarthrosis and/or instability; all postoperative X-rays and CT scans if available were independently evaluated by a neuroradiologist. Pseudoarthrosis was diagnosed if one of the following was observed: subluxation across the previous fusion site, as demonstrated on flexion–extension X-rays, or lucency across the previous fusion level.

Statistical analysis: The collected data were coded, tabulated, and statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software version 28.0, IBM Corp., Chicago, USA, 2021. Quantitative data were tested for normality using Shapiro–Wilk test, then described as mean ± SD (standard deviation) as well as minimum and maximum of the range and then compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) test (three independent groups). Qualitative data were described as number and percentage and compared using Chi-square test as well as Fisher’s exact test for variables with small, expected numbers. Bonferroni test was used for post hoc comparisons. The level of significance was taken at p-value < 0.050 was significant, otherwise was non-significant.

Results

A total of fifty-six patients were enrolled in this study and were assigned to four groups: group A1 (n = 15) patients underwent ACDF only, group A2 (n = 14) underwent ACDF with plating, group B1 (n = 14) underwent laminectomy only, and group B2 (n = 13) underwent laminectomy with lateral mass fusion. Regarding the demographics of the patients, there were no statistically significant differences between the four groups regarding age (p value = 0.273), sex (p value = 0.807) or smocking (p value = 0.999) (Table 1).

Table 1 Groups demographics
Full size table

The baseline clinical characteristics between the studied groups show no significant differences as well. These parameters included presenting symptoms and signs, duration of illness and number of levels as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Baseline clinical characteristics
Full size table

Regarding the outcome parameters, all the four studied groups showed clinical improvement with no statistically significant differences between them in both the change in mJOA score (p value = 0.973) and recovery ratio (p value = 0.913). Posterior approach groups scored non-significantly higher in postoperative NDI change (p value = 0.209) and scored non-significantly lower in postoperative VAS change (p value = 0.618) (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Postoperative mJOA change

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Postoperative recovery ratio

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Postoperative lordosis change

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Postoperative SF-36 change

Full size image

Anterior approach groups scored higher in postoperative SF-35 values and its change, with no statistically significant difference between plated and non-plated groups.

There was no statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding preoperative lordosis (p value = 0.852). Postoperative lordosis and its change, however, were significantly higher in anterior approach groups with no difference between either technique.

There was no statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding short- and long-term complications. Complications specific only to anterior approaches include hoarseness (13.8%) and dysphagia (6.7%), whereas posterior approach specific complications were hematoma (7.1%), dural tear (7.1%), progressive kyphosis (7.1%) and junctional stenosis (7.7%). Other complications that occurred in both approaches include superficial infection (6.7% for anterior versus 7.7% for posterior groups), C5 palsy (7.1% for anterior versus 7.7% for posterior groups), pseudoarthrosis (13.8% for anterior versus 7.7% for posterior groups), chronic neck pain (14.2% for anterior versus 7.7% for posterior groups) and persistent radiculopathy (6.7% for anterior versus 7.1% for posterior groups) (Table 3).

Table 3 Complications among studied groups
Full size table

Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in laminectomy and laminectomy with fusion groups with no difference between them. Similarly, hospital stay was longer in posterior approach groups, but it was not statistically significant (p value = 0.127). Plated anterior approach and laminectomy with fusion groups both had the highest operative duration (p value < 0.001) with no statistically significant difference between them (Table 4). Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 show pre- and postoperative images for selected cases, one case from each group.

Table 4 Operative findings among studied groups
Full size table
Fig. 6
figure 6

A–D Male 55 years old from group A1, A pre-op sagittal T2 MRI; B pre-op axial T2 MRI; C pre-op plain X-ray lateral view; D post-op plain X-ray lateral view

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

A–F Female 49 years old from group A2, A pre-op sagittal T2 MRI; B pre-op axial T2 MRI; C pre-op plain X-ray lateral view; D post-op plain X-ray lateral view; E post-op sagittal T2 MRI; F post-op axial T2 MRI

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

A–F Female 69 years old from group B1, A pre-op sagittal T2 MRI; B pre-op axial T2 MRI; C pre-op plain X-ray lateral view; D post-op plain X-ray lateral view; E post-op sagittal T2 MRI; F post-op axial T2 MRI

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

A–D Female 53 years old from group B2, A pre-op sagittal MRI; B pre-op axial MRI; C pre-op plain X-ray lateral view; D post-op plain X-ray lateral view; E post-op CT scan axial view

Full size image

Discussion

Surgical decompression is the only effective treatment option for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy [14, 15]. Decompression can be performed either from the anterior approach, from the posterior approach, or via combined approaches. In this study, we compared two anterior decompression techniques: ACDF with and without anterior plating, versus two posterior decompression options; laminectomy with and without fusion. Every option has been evaluated regarding their functional and radiological outcomes.

There was no statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding their demographic characteristics, symptoms, or signs. The operated levels were either three or four levels in all groups with almost 50:50 ratio except for two cases with only two levels in groups A1 and A2 one case for each group. These data are similar to Asher and Fehlings who both had relatively similar duration of symptoms (26 months) in both anterior and posterior groups [16, 17]. The mean operated levels were relatively fewer for the anterior group (2–3 levels) in Fehlings study compared to posterior group (3–4 levels) [16] While most of Asher’s patients had 3–4 levels on both groups, which was similar to our distribution [17].

In a large study arranged by Tetreault and colleagues of 757 patients from 26 global sites to investigate the predictors of functional outcomes following surgery for CSM, the presenting symptoms and signs were investigated as well as the symptoms duration [18]. According to their series, the most common neurological signs and symptoms were numb hands (90.0%), muscular weakness (83.3%), hyperreflexia (77.9%), impaired gait (76.6%), hand clumsiness (75.4%), a positive Hoffman sign (63.4%), bilateral arm paresthesia (56.5%), lower limb spasticity (47.5%) and a positive Babinski sign (35.1%) [18]. Our series had similar symptoms distribution with upper limb weakness (80.0%) and hyperreflexia (80.0%) being the most common closely followed by brachialgia (73.3%) and neck pain (66.7%) then sensory loss (53.3%), Babinski sign (33.5%), Hoffman reflex (33.3%), sphincteric disturbance (26.7%) and numbness (26.0%) with no statistically significant difference between the four groups.

Many past studies comparing anterior and posterior approaches have been criticized for carrying out their neurological evaluation and outcome assessment using only tools like the JOA score (Japanese orthopedic association score) only and neglecting postoperative pain and quality of life assessment. In our study, we used the mJOA score as well as the NDI which are better at assessing neurological functions [19]. We also used the VAS score and SF-36 form to measure the postoperative pain and quality of life.

Our study found no statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding the preoperative, postoperative or change in mJOA as well as recovery ratio. Likewise, there was no significant difference between the studied groups regarding the preoperative and postoperative values for NDI score; however, the change in NDI was non-significantly higher in laminectomy only and laminectomy with fusion than in ACDF only and ACDF with plating. These results are in agreement with previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses [20,21,22,23]. In a recently published study by Kato and colleagues [24] that analyzed 435 patients enrolled in two international AOSpine cervical spondylotic myelopathy studies, the authors found that anterior and posterior groups did not differ significantly in terms of the postoperative mJOA, or NDI scores. More recently, Asher and coworkers [17] performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from multiple surgical practices across the USA with over 250 patients undergoing three to five level fusion surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. They concluded that mJOA and NDI did not differ significantly between anterior and posterior groups. To investigate patterns and speed of neurological recovery after anterior versus posterior decompression, Ren and colleagues [25] using mJOA and recovery ratio as functional outcome assessment tools reached a conclusion that neurological recovery in both groups improved similarly, reached statistical significance at three months, recovered rapidly in the first nine months after surgical decompression and tended to be stable from then on. Accordingly, they recommended that rehabilitation should start as early as possible.

No statistically significant difference was found between the studied groups regarding preoperative and postoperative VAS; however, postoperative VAS change was non-significantly lower in laminectomy only and laminectomy with fusion (more postoperative pain) than in ACDF only and ACDF with plate (less postoperative pain). Traditionally, axial pain has been reported mainly after posterior cervical surgery, but there has been research evidence that patients with anterior surgery may also experience postoperative long-term axial pain [26]. In a recent study by Wang and colleagues comparing ACDF with plating against laminectomy with fusion in managing 4-levels CSM, they observed no difference in postoperative VAS scores of axial pain between both groups [27]. In their systematic review conducted to examine factors predisposing to postoperative axial pain following laminectomy, Wang and colleagues recommended the following to minimize axial pain after posterior surgery: early postoperative ROM (range of motion) exercise, shorter or no application of external immobilization, less surgical exposure, avoiding detachment of semispinalis cervicis muscle from C2 spinous process and reconstructing the extensor musculature as anatomical as possible [28].

Regarding quality of life assessment, there were no differences between the compared groups regarding preoperative SF-36 scores. However, postoperative SF-36 scores and its change were highest in anterior groups (with no significant difference between them) than in posterior groups. In accordance with our results, Ghogawala and colleagues reported better SF-36 scores associated with anterior surgery [29]. In contrast, Fehlings [16], Kato [24] and Hitchon [30] found no difference in the SF-36 scores between the groups treated with anterior or posterior surgical techniques.

The extensive muscle dissection associated with posterior approaches usually reflects into more postoperative discomfort and accordingly longer hospital stays. In our research, hospital stay was non-significantly longer in posterior groups. There was no difference between anterior and posterior groups regarding operative duration. However, intraoperative blood loss was highest in posterior groups. These findings match most of the published literature [17, 24, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Owing to the longer hospital days related to posterior surgery, Ghogawala [29] among other authors [16, 36] consider anterior approaches to be highly cost-effective compared to posterior approaches.

In our study, both anterior and posterior cohorts were associated with complications, both short- and long-term with no statistically significant difference between either approach which is the same conclusion reached by previous authors like Ghogawala [29], Asher [17], Kato [24] and Fehlings. [16].

Previous studies in the literature had similar complications rate and distribution to ours; regarding hoarseness, El-Ghandour [35] rate was (6.3%), which is nearly like that reported in the series by Liu [34] (8%) and Kristof [32] (7.1%), all three values were lower than ours, and Edwards [31] series rate was (15.6%). Concerning dysphagia, our rate of (6.7%) was lower than that of El-Ghandour [35] (15.6%), Ghogawala [29] (14.3%) and Edwards [31] (30.8%), almost similar to the rate found by Liu [34] (8%), Asher [17] (6.1%) and Kristof [32] (7.1%). In our series, cases of dysphagia spontaneously resolved within the first postoperative week while patients with hoarseness improved within three months duration.

Traditionally, C5 palsy is associated more with posterior approaches that some authors cite a tenfold more likely occurrence of C5 palsy with the posterior than the anterior approach [30]. El-Ghandour series [35] showed a higher rate of C5 palsy in the posterior group (9.1%) compared to the anterior (3.1%) which is comparable to the rate of Liu [34] (7.4% versus 0%), Ghogawala [29] (13.6% versus 0%) and Hitchon [30] (16% versus 0%). Another complication that is traditionally specific to posterior approaches is dural tears. Our rate of (7.1%) is similar to that of El-Ghandour [35] (6.1%), Audat [37] (2.8%) and Asher [17] (1.2%).

Pseudoarthrosis and fusion failure are often cited as the most common complication specific to anterior approaches [22]. Our rate of (13.8% for anterior versus 7.7% for posterior groups) is similar to that of Kristof’s series [32] (16.6% versus 6.5%). Other authors reported the occurrence of pseudoarthrosis only in the anterior approach groups, namely Benzel [38] (11.8% versus 0%), El-Ghandour [35] (12.5% versus 0%), Liu [34] (4% versus 0%), Edwards [31] (7.7% versus 0%) and Shibuya [33] (17.6% versus 0%).

Posterior cervical approaches with or without instrumentations are often associated with loss of lordosis [39, 40]. Both Roguski and Tang in a separate research proved an inverse relationship between cervical lordosis and patients quality of life values even if those patients have improved regarding myelopathy scores [41, 42]. On the contrary, anterior approaches have been shown to result in more effective correction of kyphosis and the maintenance of postoperative lordosis than laminoplasty and laminectomy with instrumentation [42]. Our results are in agreement with the literature in this as we found no statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding preoperative lordosis; however, postoperative lordosis and its change were highest in both anterior groups (with no significant difference between them) than in posterior groups.

Our study did not find statistically significant differences between group A1 and A2 (ACDF only and ACDF with plating) regarding functional outcomes, lordosis or complications. This might be attributed to the relatively short follow-up period. The main advantages of adding an anterior cervical plate often cited in the literature are higher fusion rates, less incidence of graft subsidence and greater lordosis angles [6, 43,44,45,46]. On the other hand, higher rates of adjacent segment disease (ASD) and subsequent reoperations in addition to greater incidence of postoperative dysphagia were often quoted as drawbacks to cervical plating [47,48,49].

Other than longer operative duration associated with laminectomy with fusion, no statistically significant differences have been found in our study between groups B1 and B2 (laminectomy only and laminectomy with fusion) regarding functional outcomes, lordosis or complications. Controversy exists concerning the use of prophylactic instrumented fusion as an adjunct to laminectomy for CSM as long-term effects on functional status remain uncertain [50]. Laminectomy alone may be safe and effective in highly selected patients who have a stiff cervical spine, preserved cervical lordosis, and no radiographic evidence of spinal instability. Due to higher cost of instrumentations, and its association with more operative time, blood loss and perioperative complications, instrumented fusion as an adjunct to laminectomy should be reserved in cases when laminectomy alone is contraindicated.

Conclusions

Both anterior and posterior approaches addressing CSM were associated with significant improvements in most health-related outcomes with no differences in complications severity or frequency. Anterior surgery was associated with a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss with better quality of life scores and more successful restoration of cervical lordosis than posterior surgery. Despite that no difference has been demonstrated between plated and non-plated anterior fusion, plated techniques may enhance fusion and further restore lordosis. Likewise, although no difference has been detected between laminectomy alone and with lateral mass fusion, it is advised, however, to add fusion to laminectomy whenever there is evident instability or lack of lordosis.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CSM:

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy

ACDF:

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

mJOA:

Modified Japanese orthopedic association scale

NDI:

Neck disability index

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

SF-36:

Short form 36

A-P:

Antero-posterior

OPLL:

Ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament

ROM:

Range of motion

RR:

Recovery ratio

SPSS:

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

SD:

Standard deviation

JOA:

Japanese orthopedic association

ASD:

Adjacent segment disease

References

  1. Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S21-36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lau D, Winkler EA, Than KD, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with posterior spinal fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: influence of cervical alignment on outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(5):508–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang Y, Liu H, Yang H, Pi B. Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus discectomy and fusion for the treatment of two-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: analysis of sagittal balance and axial symptoms. Int Orthop. 2018;42(8):1877–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Banno F, Zreik J, Alvi MA, Goyal A, Freedman BA, Bydon M. Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: insights from a national registry. World Neurosurg. 2019;132:e852–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Emery SE. Anterior approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: which? When? How? Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 2):150–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burkhardt BW, Brielmaier M, Schwerdtfeger K, Sharif S, Oertel JM. Smith-Robinson procedure with and without Caspar plating as a treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a 26-year follow-up of 23 patients. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1246–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenthal BD, Boody BS, Hsu WK, Patel AA. Management of cervical myelopathy, surgical treatment. Rothman-Simeone the Spine 5. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2018.

  8. Kato S, Ganau M, Fehlings MG. Surgical decision-making in degenerative cervical myelopathy - anterior versus posterior approach. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;58:7–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Boutris N, McCulloch PC, Robbins AB, Moreno MR, et al. Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018;2(3): e088.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Nouri A, Arnold P, Barbagallo G, Bartels R, et al. The modified Japanese orthopaedic association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(1):78–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaheen AA, Omar MT, Vernon H. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Arabic version of neck disability index in patients with neck pain. Spine. 2013;38(10):E609–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barile JP, Horner-Johnson W, Krahn G, Zack M, Miranda D, DeMichele K, et al. Measurement characteristics for two health-related quality of life measures in older adults: the SF-36 and the CDC healthy days items. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(4):567–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Martini ML, Neifert SN, Chapman EK, Mroz TE, Rasouli JJ. Cervical spine alignment in the sagittal axis: a review of the best validated measures in clinical practice. Glob Spine J. 2021;11(8):1307–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Riew KD, Bisson EF, Heary RF. Surgery versus conservative care for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgery is appropriate for progressive myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2015;62(Suppl 1):56–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, Albanese V, Alvarado M, Arnold P, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine. 2015;40(17):1322–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fehlings MG, Barry S, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold P, Massicotte EM, et al. Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study in 264 patients. Spine. 2013;38(26):2247–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Asher AL, Devin CJ, Kerezoudis P, Chotai S, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Comparison of outcomes following anterior versus posterior fusion surgery for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an analysis from quality outcomes database. Neurosurgery. 2019;84(4):919–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tetreault L, Wilson JR, Kotter MRN, Côté P, Nouri A, Kopjar B, et al. Is preoperative duration of symptoms a significant predictor of functional outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy? Neurosurgery. 2019;85(5):642–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yoshii T, Egawa S, Chikuda H, Wakao N, Furuya T, Kanchiku T, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior decompression with fusion and posterior laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Orthop Sci. 2021;26(1):116–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Brodke DS. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S173–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu X, Min S, Zhang H, Zhou Z, Wang H, Jin A. Anterior corpectomy versus posterior laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(2):362–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhu B, Xu Y, Liu X, Liu Z, Dang G. Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1583–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. You JY, Zheng Y, Chen M, Fan JR. Anterior versus posterior approach for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2017;30(1):71–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kato S, Nouri A, Wu D, Nori S, Tetreault L, Fehlings MG. Comparison of anterior and posterior surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: an MRI-based propensity-score-matched analysis using data from the prospective multicenter AOSpine CSM North America and international studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(12):1013–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ren H, Liu F, Yu D, Cao J, Shen Y, Li X, et al. Patterns of neurological recovery after anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(8):E1104–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cao Y, Xu C, Sun B, Cui C, Zhang K, Wu H, et al. Preoperative cervical cobb angle is a risk factor for postoperative axial neck pain after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile interbody. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(12):3225–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang XZ, Liu H, Li JQ, Sun Y, Zhang F, Guo L, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cervical laminectomy and fusion in the treatment of 4-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(2):229–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang M, Luo XJ, Deng QX, Li JH, Wang N. Prevalence of axial symptoms after posterior cervical decompression: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(7):2302–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ghogawala Z, Terrin N, Dunbar MR, Breeze JL, Freund KM, Kanter AS, et al. Effect of ventral versus dorsal spinal surgery on patient-reported physical functioning in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325(10):942–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hitchon PW, Woodroffe RW, Noeller JA, Helland L, Hramakova N, Nourski KV. Anterior and posterior approaches for cervical myelopathy: clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine. 2019;44(9):615–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Edwards CC 2nd, Heller JG, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical myelopathy: an independent matched-cohort analysis. Spine. 2002;27(11):1168–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kristof RA, Kiefer T, Thudium M, Ringel F, Stoffel M, Kovacs A, et al. Comparison of ventral corpectomy and plate-screw-instrumented fusion with dorsal laminectomy and rod-screw-instrumented fusion for treatment of at least two vertebral-level spondylotic cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(12):1951–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Shibuya S, Komatsubara S, Oka S, Kanda Y, Arima N, Yamamoto T. Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(3):214–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu T, Yang HL, Xu YZ, Qi RF, Guan HQ. ACDF with the PCB cage-plate system versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(4):213–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. El-Ghandour NMF, Soliman MAR, Ezzat AAM, Mohsen A, Zein-Elabedin M. The safety and efficacy of anterior versus posterior decompression surgery in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomized trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33:288–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schuermans VNE, Smeets AYJM, Boselie AFM, Zarrouk O, Hermans SMM, Droeghaag R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression surgery for cervical degenerative disk disease: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(5):1206–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Audat ZA, Fawareh MD, Radydeh AM, Obeidat MM, Odat MA, Bashaireh KM, et al. Anterior versus posterior approach to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy, clinical and radiological results with long period of follow-up. SAGE Open Med. 2018;6:2050312118766199.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(3):286–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cherian J, Mayer RR, Haroun KB, Winnegan LR, Omeis I. Contribution of lordotic correction on C5 palsy following cervical laminectomy and fusion. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(6):816–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sakai K, Yoshii T, Hirai T, Arai Y, Shinomiya K, Okawa A. Impact of the surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy on the preoperative cervical sagittal balance: a review of prospective comparative cohort between anterior decompression with fusion and laminoplasty. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(1):104–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roguski M, Benzel EC, Curran JN, Magge SN, Bisson EF, Krishnaney AA, et al. Postoperative cervical sagittal imbalance negatively affects outcomes after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2014;39(25):2070–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, Deviren V, Bess S, Hart RA, et al. The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(Suppl 1):S14-21 (Discussion S).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Oliver JD, Goncalves S, Kerezoudis P, Alvi MA, Freedman BA, Nassr A, et al. Comparison of outcomes for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with and without anterior plate fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine. 2018;43(7):E413–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bakhsheshian J, Mehta VA, Liu JC. Current diagnosis and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Glob Spine J. 2017;7(6):572–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Côté P, Singh A, Fehlings MG. A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine SPI. 2016;24(1):77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Laratta JL, Reddy HP, Bratcher KR, McGraw KE, Carreon LY, Owens RK 2nd. Outcomes and revision rates following multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(3):496–500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Heemskerk JL, Vega CP, Domingo RA, Richter KR, Richter R, Vivas-Buitrago TG, Neal MT, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Abode-Iyamah K. The effect of plating on adjacent segments in anterior cervical discectomy and fusions in patients with degenerative spine disease: a retrospective cohort study. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2022;6(4):350–7. https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2021-0073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kwok WCH, Wong CYY, Law JHW, Tsang VWT, Tong LWL, Samartzis D, et al. Risk factors for adjacent segment disease following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(21):1915–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Savio SD, Deslivia MF, Arimbawa IBG, Suyasa IK, Wiguna I, Ridia KGM. Thorough comparative analysis of stand-alone cage and anterior cervical plate for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of cervical degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Spine J. 2022;16(5):812–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Bajamal AH, Kim SH, Arifianto MR, Faris M, Subagio EA, Roitberg B, et al. Posterior surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: WFNS spine committee recommendations. Neurospine. 2019;16(3):421–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors declare that no funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Omar El Farouk Ahmed, Salah A. Hemida, Tarek H. Elserry, Wael Ashour & Abdelrahman Elgayar

Authors
  1. Omar El Farouk Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salah A. Hemida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tarek H. Elserry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wael Ashour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdelrahman Elgayar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study design, execution and follow-up of the clinical cases, data analysis and results formulation, and writing of the manuscript were all the joint work of all the authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wael Ashour.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research was conducted upon obtaining the approval of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of the Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University, held in 08/9/2018 with the reference number of (FWA 00017585). Since this study involved human subjects, an informed consent was signed and acquired from all the participants or their legal guardians in accordance with the REC recommendations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmed, O.E.F., Hemida, S.A., Elserry, T.H. et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with and without plating versus laminectomy with and without fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective observational study. Egypt J Neurosurg 39, 50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41984-024-00309-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41984-024-00309-1

Keywords