Comparative characteristic of anterior and posterior stabilization of the cervical spine during surgical interventions

Objective. To analyze possibilities and limitations of various stabilization technologies in the surgical treatment of cervical spine pathology.

Material and Methods. Study design: retrospective monocentric observational analysis. Level of evidence: 3b (UK Oxford, version 2009). Diagnostic and treatment data are presented for 433 patients operated on using stabilization systems: patients in Group 1 (n = 228) underwent anterior fixation, those in Group 2 (n = 175) – posterior fixation with polyaxial screw systems, and in Group 3 (n = 30) – combined (anterior and posterior) fixation.

Results. For anterior fixation, ACDF, ACCF and their combinations were used as stabilization technologies. In 18.0 % of patients, 49 complications were revealed which corresponded to the 1st and 2nd categories according to the recommendations of WHO, and to grades I–IVA of Clavien – Dindo classification. For posterior fixation in Group 2, stabilization was performed using screw instrumentation systems. In 13.7 % of patients, 25 complications of the 1st and 2nd categories according to WHO recommendations and grades I–V according to Clavien-Dindo classification were revealed. Combined fixation involved the use of both anterior and posterior stabilizations. Analysis of anterior and posterior fixation techniques, as well as their comparison, showed a wide range of posterior stabilization options for a surgeon: any age, length, localization and nosology. Moreover, the realization of these advantages is carried out only through the indispensable use of screw fixation. Posterior fixation has several limitations: the impossibility of anterior decompression, limited correction of segmental lordosis, accessibility and greater trauma to soft tissues.

Conclusion. Comparative analysis of methods for the cervical spine stabilization showed that posterior fixation is an integral part of the surgical treatment of the cervical spine pathology. The obtained results indicate the complementarity of the technologies for the cervical spine stabilization, without their interchangeability. These data can be useful when choosing stabilization techniques before planning surgical treatment of cervical spine pathology, which will allow changing the existing paradigm.

1. Ваккаро А.Р., Барон И.М. Хирургия позвоночника. Оперативная техника: пер. с англ. / под ред. Ю.А. Щербука. М., 2015. [Vaccaro AR, Baron IM, eds. Operative Techniques: Spine Surgery. Transl. under edition of Yu. A. Shcherbuk. Izdatelstvo Panfilova, 2015. In Russian].

2. Ким Д.Х., Ваккаро А.Р., Дикман К.А., Чо Д., Ли С.К., Ким И. Позвоночник. Хирургическая анатомия и оперативная техника / под ред. Ю.А. Щербука. М., 2016. [Kim DH, Vaccaro AR, Dickman CA, Cho D, Lee SK, Kim I. Surgical Anatomy and Techniques to the Spine. Transl. from English, ed. by Yu.A. Shcherbuk. Panfilov Publishing House, 2016. In Russian].

3. Herkowitz HN, Garfin S, Eismont F, Bell G, Balderston R. Rothman-Simeone the Spine, 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, 2011.

4. Spine Trauma: Surgical Techniques, ed. by VV Patel, E Burger, CW Brown. Heidelberg: Springer, 2010.

5. Suchomel P, Choutka O. Reconstruction of Upper Cervical Spine and Craniovertebral Junction. Heidelberg: Springer, 2011.

6. The Cervical Spine, ed. by EC Benzel. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012.

7. The Textbook of Spinal Surgery, ed. by KH Bridwell, RL DeWald. 3rded. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health / Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011.

8. Ge C, Hao D, He B, Mi B. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior fixation and fusion of C2–3 for unstable Hangman’s fracture. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E61–E66. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000150.

9. Kristof RA, Kiefer T, Thudium M, Ringel F, Stoffel M, Kovacs A, Mueller CA. 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;18:1951–1956. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1110-x.

10. Fang Z, Tian R, Sun TW, Yadav SK, Hu W, Xie SQ. Expansion open-door laminoplasty with foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for coexisting multilevel cervical myelopathy and unilateral radiculopathy. Clin. Spine Surg. 2016;29:E21–E27. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000074.

11. Каминский Ю.В., Тимошенко В.С. Ятрогении: классификация, категории, рубрикация // Pacific Medical Journal. 2007. № 1. С. 12–14. [Kaminsky YuV, Timoshenko VS. Iatrogenias: classification, categories, rubricating. Pacific Medical Journal. 2007;(1):12–14. In Russian].

12. Willhuber GC, Elizondo C, Slullitel P. Analysis of postoperative complications in spinal surgery, hospital length of stay, and unplanned readmission: application of Dindo-Clavien classification to spine surgery Global Spine J. 2019;9:279–286. DOI: 10.1177/2192568218792053.

13. Beez T, Brown J. Traumatic atlanto-occipital dislocation in children – a case-based update on clinical characteristics, management and outcome. Childs Nerv Syst. 2017;33:27–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00381-016-3265-1.

14. Derman PB, Lampe LP, Lyman S, Kueper J, Pan TJ, Girardi FP, Albert TJ, Hughes AP. Atlantoaxial fusion: sixteen years of epidemiology, indications, and complications in New York state. Spine. 2016;41:1586–1592. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001603.

15. Menezes AH. Craniocervical fusions in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2012;9:573–585. DOI: 10.3171/2012.2.PEDS11371.

16. Geck MJ, Truumees E, Hawthorne D, Singh D, Stokes JK, Flynn A. Feasibility of rigid upper cervical instrumentation in children tomographic analysis of children aged 2–6J. Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27:E110–E117. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318291ce46.

17. Shuhui G, Jiagang L, Haifeng C, Hao ZB, Qing HS. Surgical management of adult reducible atlantoaxial dislocation, basilar invagination and Chiari malformation with syringomyelia. Turk Neurosurg. 2016;26:615–621. DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.13884-14.2.

18. Fang Z, Tian R, Sun TW, Yadav SK, Hu W, Xie SQ. Expansion open-door laminoplasty with foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for coexisting multilevel cervical myelopathy and unilateral radiculopathy. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29:E21–E27. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000074.

19. Liu S, Tetreault L, Fehlings MG, Challier V, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Arnold PM, Scheer JK, Chapman JR, Kopjar B, Protopsaltis TS, Lafage V, Schwab F, Massicotte EM, Yoon ST, Ames CP. Novel method using baseline normalization and area under the curve to evaluate differences in outcome between treatment groups and application to patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing anterior versus posterior surgery. Spine. 2015;40:E1299–E1304. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001152.

20. Lee SH, Kim KT, Lee JH, Kang KC, Jang SJ, Hwang SP, Yoon KT. 540º cervical realignment procedure for extensive cervical OPLL with kyphotic deformity. Spine. 2016;41:1876–1883. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001794.

21. Kim KH, Cho DC, Sung JK. The management of bilateral interfacetal dislocation with anterior fixation in cervical spine: comparison with combined antero-posterior fixation J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2007;42:305–310. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2007.42.4.305.

22. Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Chen E, Patel AA, Ahn H, Nassr A, Shaffrey CI, Harrop J, Schroeder GD, Agarwala A, Dvorak MF, Fourney DR, Wood KB, Traynelis VC, Yoon ST, Fehlings MG, Aarabi B. Treatment of isolated cervical facet fractures: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24:347–354. DOI: 10.3171/2015.6.SPINE141260.