Outcomes of Revision Surgery for Pseudarthrosis After Anterior Cervical Fusion: Case Series and Systematic Review.
case_series · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 32677569.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/2192568219863808 and PMC identifier 7359693.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Case series/systematic review. To report on patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion for symptomatic pseudarthrosis following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and to assess outcomes reporting in the literature. Patients undergoing posterior instrumented fusion for pseudarthrosis after primary ACDF from 2013 to 2018 by a single surgeon were reviewed consecutively. Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) arm/neck were recorded at preoperative, 6-month, and 1-year time points. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and outcomes reporting was recorded. NDI scores were 54.4 (SD 19.1), 36.6 (SD 18.1), and 41.2 (SD 19.2) at preoperative, 6-month, and 1-year time points, respectively, with improvement from preoperatively to 6 months (<i>P</i> = .004). VAS neck scores were 8.1 (SD 1.3), 5.0 (SD 2.9), and 5.8 (SD 2.2) at preoperative, 6-month, and 1-year time points, respectively, with improvement from preoperatively to 6 months (<i>P</i> = .038). VAS arm scores were 5.1 (SD 4.1), 3.5 (SD 3.2), and 3.6 (SD 2.7) at preoperative, 6-month, and 1-year time points, respectively, with improvement although these did not reach statistical significance (<i>P</i> = .145). The most common subjective outcomes reported in the literature were general symptoms assessments (43%), ordinal scales (43%), and VAS neck (19%) scales, with the majority of studies (67%) documenting one measure. Patient-reported outcomes demonstrate clinically meaningful improvement within the first 6 months after posterior fusion for pseudarthrosis. Studies demonstrate substantial variability and no standardization in outcomes reporting, limiting the ability to compare results across interventions and pathologies. Standardized reporting will enable comparisons to inform patients and physicians on the optimal approach to treat this difficult problem.
Anatomy
- cervical spine