In gratitude of the loyal support of our members, the CNS is offering complimentary 2021 Annual Meeting registration to all members! Learn more.

  • The Effect of C2-C3 Disc Angle on Postoperative Adverse Events in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

    Final Number:
    473

    Authors:
    Bryan S Lee MD; Kevin M Walsh MD; Daniel Lubelski MD; Emily Hu BA; Richard C Lee BA; Maheen Nadeem BS; Joseph E Tanenbaum BA; Iain H. Kalfas MD; Richard P. Schlenk MD; Thomas E. Mroz MD; Michael P. Steinmetz MD; Edward C. Benzel MD

    Study Design:
    Other

    Subject Category:
    Spine

    Meeting: Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves Spine Summit 2018

    Introduction: Complete radiographic evaluation is essential in the surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Prior studies correlated cervical sagittal imbalance and kyphosis with disability and worse health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). However, little is known about the elevated angle at the C2-C3 disc space (C2-C3 angle) and its correlation with post-operative outcomes. The present study is the first to consider C2-C3 angle as an additional radiographic predictor of clinical outcomes, and we propose the routine evaluation of C2-C3 angle to help optimize surgical outcomes.

    Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed to identify CSM patients who underwent surgeries from 2009 to 2017, and to obtain their demographics, rates of reoperation from instrumentation failure, and HR-QOL. Cervical sagittal alignment variables were measured using the pre- and post-op radiographs. Univariate logistic regressions were used to explore the association between dependent and independent variables, and a multivariable logistic regression model was created using stepwise variable selection as reference by including all independent variables. Nonparametric methods were used to estimate the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

    Results: We identified 164 patients who had complete pre-and post-operative radiographic and outcomes data. The overall rate of instrumentation failure requiring reoperation was 15.2% (25/164). Only the post-operative C2-C3 angle, sagittal vertical axis, and T1 tilt were found to be significantly associated with the odds of instrumentation failure. The ROC analysis demonstrated that C2-C3 angle was the most accurate of the models.

    Conclusions: In our retrospective analysis of post-operative outcomes of patients with CSM, significant association was found between the C2-C3 angle and post-operative clinical outcomes. We propose that C2-C3 angle be used as an additional parameter of cervical sagittal alignment and predictor for the operative outcomes. C2-C3 angle may also be useful intra-operatively, to serve as a surrogate measure to the global cervical balance.

    Patient Care: CSM is a common but frequently undiagnosed manifestation of degenerative process. Although there is uncertainty regarding the determination of the optimal approach, the operative objective to achieve decompression, deformity correction, and stabilization remains clear. Our proposed routine evaluation of C2-C3 angle can be a valuable additional radiogrphic tool to optimize the pre-op planning with the degree of deformity correction necessary, intra-operative evaluation of the global cervical sagittal balance, and post-operative assessment of clinical outcomes.

    Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to: 1) Identify the essential cervical alignment measurements, including the C2-C3 disc angle; 2) Utilize the appropriately measured radiographic variables as predictors of clinical post-operative outcomes; 3) Routinely evaluate the C2-C3 angle pre-, intra-, and post-operatively to help minimize surgical complications and optimize outcomes.

    References: 1. Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwab FJ, Le Huec JC, Massicotte EM, et al: Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:S149-160, 2013 2. Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Berven S, Edwards C, 2nd, Glassman S, Hamill C, et al: Changes in radiographic and clinical outcomes with primary treatment adult spinal deformity surgeries from two years to three- to five-years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1849-1854, 2010 3. Clarke E, Robinson PK: Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 79:483-510, 1956 4. Cusick JF: Pathophysiology and treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Neurosurg 37:661-681, 1991 5. Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Riew KD, Bisson EF, Heary RF: Surgery vs Conservative Care for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Surgery Is Appropriate for Progressive Myelopathy. Neurosurgery 62 Suppl 1:56-61, 2015 6. Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Rinella A, Edwards C, 2nd: Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1643-1649, 2005 7. Han K, Lu C, Li J, Xiong GZ, Wang B, Lv GH, et al: Surgical treatment of cervical kyphosis. Eur Spine J 20:523-536, 2011 8. Jun HS, Kim JH, Ahn JH, Chang IB, Song JH, Kim TH, et al: T1 slope and degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E220-226, 2015 9. Lebl DR, Hughes A, Cammisa FP, Jr., O'Leary PF: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. HSS J 7:170-178, 2011 10. Mac-Thiong JM, Transfeldt EE, Mehbod AA, Perra JH, Denis F, Garvey TA, et al: Can c7 plumbline and gravity line predict health related quality of life in adult scoliosis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E519-527, 2009 11. Montgomery DM, Brower RS: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clinical syndrome and natural history. Orthop Clin North Am 23:487-493, 1992 12. Nunez-Pereira S, Hitzl W, Bullmann V, Meier O, Koller H: Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: an analysis of occipitocervical and spinopelvic interdependence, with C-7 slope as a marker of cervical and spinopelvic alignment. J Neurosurg Spine 23:16-23, 2015 13. Park MS, Kelly MP, Lee DH, Min WK, Rahman RK, Riew KD: Sagittal alignment as a predictor of clinical adjacent segment pathology requiring surgery after anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine J 14:1228-1234, 2014 14. Patwardhan AG, Khayatzadeh S, Nguyen NL, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Muriuki MG, et al: Is Cervical Sagittal Imbalance a Risk Factor for Adjacent Segment Pathomechanics After Multilevel Fusion? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E580-588, 2016 15. Penning L, Wilmink JT, van Woerden HH, Knol E: CT myelographic findings in degenerative disorders of the cervical spine: clinical significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 146:793-801, 1986 16. Rao R: Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. Instr Course Lect 52:479-488, 2003 17. 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 76 Suppl 1:S14-21; discussion S21, 2015 18. Truumees E, Herkowitz HN: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. Instr Course Lect 49:339-360, 2000 19. Yonenobu K: Cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy: when and what can surgery contribute to treatment? Eur Spine J 9:1-7, 2000

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy