Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.7
3.0
Journals
JCM
Special Issues
Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery
jcm-logo
Submit to JCM Review for JCM Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Orthopedics".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (10 April 2023) | Viewed by 13264

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Lee Tan

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
Interests: cervical motion preservation; cervical spondylotic myelopathy; cervical radiculopathy; OPLL; cervical deformity; cervical biomechanics
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Dr. Mohamed MacKi

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA
Interests: spine surgery; lumbar surgery; general neurosurgery

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

With an aging world population, cervical spine pathology is becoming an increasingly prevalent cause of disability and can significantly impact patients’ quality of life. In the last decade, there has been significant advances in surgical techniques and medical technology, as well as an improved understanding of cervical and global spinal alignment.

The scope of this Special Issue is to provide an updated review on the recent advances and continued challenges in cervical spine surgery. We hope to cover a wide range of topics, including cervical spondylotic myelopathy, OPLL, cervical deformity, cervical spine biomechanics, motion-preserving techniques, cervical deformity correction techniques, and surgical pearls and complication avoidance. You can contribute to this Special Issue by submitting an original article or review (case reports and short reviews are not accepted).

Dr. Lee Tan
Dr. Mohamed MacKi
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • cervical spondylotic myelopathy
  • OPLL cervical radiculopathy
  • cervical deformity
  • ACDF
  • artificial disc
  • laminoplasty
  • cervical laminectomy and fusion

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (5 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

11 pages, 1263 KiB  
Article
Multilevel Laminoplasty for CSM: Is C3 Laminectomy Better Than C3 Laminoplasty at the Superior Vertebra?
by Mohamed Macki, Timothy Chryssikos, Seth M. Meade, Alexander A. Aabedi, Vijay Letchuman, Vardhaan Ambati, Nishanth Krishnan, Michael E. Tawil, Seth Tichelaar, Joshua Rivera, Andrew K. Chan, Lee A. Tan, Dean Chou and Praveen Mummaneni
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(24), 7594; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12247594 - 9 Dec 2023
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1506
Abstract
Introduction: In a multilevel cervical laminoplasty operation for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), a partial or complete C3 laminectomy may be performed at the upper level instead of a C3 plated laminoplasty. It is unknown whether C3 technique above the laminoplasty affects [...] Read more.
Introduction: In a multilevel cervical laminoplasty operation for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), a partial or complete C3 laminectomy may be performed at the upper level instead of a C3 plated laminoplasty. It is unknown whether C3 technique above the laminoplasty affects loss of cervical lordosis or range of motion. Methods: Patients undergoing multilevel laminoplasty of the cervical spine (C3–C6/C7) at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on surgical technique at C3: C3–C6/C7 plated laminoplasty (“C3 laminoplasty only”, N = 61), C3 partial or complete laminectomy, plus C4–C6/C7 plated laminoplasty (N = 39). All patients had at least 1-year postoperative X-ray treatment. Results: Of 100 total patients, C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy were equivalent in all demographic data, except for age (66.4 vs. 59.4 years, p = 0.012). None of the preoperative radiographic parameters differed between the C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy cohorts: cervical lordosis (13.1° vs. 11.1°, p = 0.259), T1 slope (32.9° vs. 29.2°, p = 0.072), T1 slope–cervical lordosis (19.8° vs. 18.6°, p = 0.485), or cervical sagittal vertical axis (3.1 cm vs. 2.7 cm, p = 0.193). None of the postoperative radiographic parameters differed between the C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy cohorts: cervical lordosis (9.4° vs. 11.2°, p = 0.369), T1 slope–cervical lordosis (21.7° vs. 18.1°, p = 0.126), to cervical sagittal vertical axis (3.3 cm vs. 3.6 cm, p = 0.479). In the total cohort, 31% had loss of cervical lordosis >5°. Loss of lordosis reached 5–10° (mild change) in 13% of patients and >10° (moderate change) in 18% of patients. C3 laminoplasty and C3 laminectomy cohorts did not differ with respect to no change (<5°: 65.6% vs. 74.3%, respectively), mild change (5–10°: 14.8% vs. 10.3%), and moderate change (>10°: 19.7% vs. 15.4%) in cervical lordosis, p = 0.644. When controlling for age, ordinal regression showed that surgical technique at C3 did not increase the odds of postoperative loss of cervical lordosis. C3 laminectomy versus C3 laminoplasty did not differ in the postoperative range of motion on cervical flexion–extension X-rays (23.9° vs. 21.7°, p = 0.451, N = 91). Conclusion: There was no difference in postoperative loss of cervical lordosis or postoperative range of motion in patients who underwent either C3–C6/C7 plated laminoplasty or C3 laminectomy plus C4–C6/C7 plated laminoplasty. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 3169 KiB  
Article
Assessment of Biomechanical Advantages in Combined Anterior–Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery by Radiological Outcomes: Pedicle Screws over Lateral Mass Screws
by Sang-Ho Kim, Ji-hyeon Kim, Ji-Won Kwon, Hak-Sun Kim, Seong-Hwan Moon, Kyung-Soo Suk and Byung-Ho Lee
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(9), 3201; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12093201 - 29 Apr 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1666
Abstract
Background: The combined anterior–posterior approach has shown good clinical outcomes for multilevel cervical diseases. This work describes the biomechanical advantage of cervical-pedicle-screw fixation over lateral-mass-screw fixation in combined anterior–posterior cases. Method: Seventy-six patients who received combined cervical surgery from June 2013 to December [...] Read more.
Background: The combined anterior–posterior approach has shown good clinical outcomes for multilevel cervical diseases. This work describes the biomechanical advantage of cervical-pedicle-screw fixation over lateral-mass-screw fixation in combined anterior–posterior cases. Method: Seventy-six patients who received combined cervical surgery from June 2013 to December 2020 were included. The patients were divided into two groups: the lateral-mass-screw group (LMS) and the pedicle-screw group (PPS). Radiological outcomes were assessed with lateral cervical spine X-rays for evaluating sagittal alignment, subsidence, and bone remodeling. Results: At 1 year postoperatively, the numbers of patients whose C2–C7 cervical lordosis was less than 20 degrees decreased by more in the PPS group (p-value = 0.001). The amount of vertical-length change from immediately to 1 year postsurgery was less in the PPS group than in the LMS group (p-value = 0.030). The mean vertebral-body-width change was larger in the PPS group than in the LMS group during 3 months to 1 year postsurgery (p-value = 0.000). Conclusions: In combined anterior–posterior cervical surgery cases, maintenance of cervical lordosis and protection of the vertebral body from subsidence were better with the pedicle-screw fixation. More bone remodeling occurred when using the pedicle-screw fixation method. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 2904 KiB  
Article
Posterior Preventive Foraminotomy before Laminectomy Combined with Pedicle Screw Fixation May Decrease the Incidence of C5 Palsy in Complex Cervical Spine Surgery in Patients with Severe Myeloradiculopathy
by Yong-Ho Lee, Mahmoud Abdou, Ji-Won Kwon, Kyung-Soo Suk, Seong-Hwan Moon, You-Gun Won, Tae-Jin Lee and Byung-Ho Lee
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(6), 2227; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062227 - 13 Mar 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2816
Abstract
C5 palsy is a frequent sequela of cervical decompression surgeries for cervical myeloradiculopathy. Although many researchers have suggested various risk factors, such as cord shifting and the correction of lordotic angles, the tethering of the C5 root beneath the narrow foramen is an [...] Read more.
C5 palsy is a frequent sequela of cervical decompression surgeries for cervical myeloradiculopathy. Although many researchers have suggested various risk factors, such as cord shifting and the correction of lordotic angles, the tethering of the C5 root beneath the narrow foramen is an independent risk factor for C5 palsy. In this study, we tried to investigate different techniques for foramen decompression with posterior cervical fusion and assess the incidence of C5 palsy with each technique depending on the order of foraminal decompression. A combined 540° approach with LMS and uncovertebrectomy was used in group 1. Group 2 combined a 540° approach with pedicle screws and posterior foraminotomy, while posterior approach only with pedicle screws and foraminotomy was used in group 3. For groups 2 and 3, prophylactic posterior foraminotomy was performed before laminectomy. Motor manual testing to assess C5 palsy, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores were determined before and after surgery. Simple radiographs, MRI and CT scans, were obtained to assess radiologic parameters preoperatively and postoperatively. A total of 362 patients were enrolled in this study: 208 in group 1, 72 in group 2, and 82 in group 3. The mean age was 63.2, 65.5, and 66.6 years in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median for fused levels was 4 for the three groups. There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of fused levels. Weight, height, comorbidities, and diagnosis were not significantly different between groups. Preoperative JOA scores were similar between groups (p = 0.256), whereas the preoperative NDI score was significantly higher in group 3 than in group 2 (p = 0.040). Mean JOA score at 12-month follow-up was 15.5 ± 1.89, 16.1 ± 1.48, and 16.1 ± 1.48 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; it was higher in group 3 compared with group 1 (p = 0.008) and in group 2 compared with group 1 (p = 0.024). NDI score at 12 months was 13, 12, and 13 in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; it was significantly better in group 3 than in group 1 (p = 0.040), but there were no other significant differences between groups. The incidence of C5 palsy was significantly lower in posterior foraminotomy groups with pedicle screws (groups 2 and 3) than in LMS with uncovertebrectomy (group 1) (p < 0.001). Thus, preventive expansive foraminotomy before decompressive laminectomy is able to significantly decrease the root tethering by stenotic lesion, and subsequently, decrease the incidence of C5 palsy associated with posterior only or combined posterior and anterior cervical fusion surgeries. Additionally, such expansive foraminotomy might be appropriate with pedicle screw insertion based on biomechanical considerations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 974 KiB  
Article
Variation in Prevertebral Soft Tissue Swelling after Staged Combined Multilevel Anterior–Posterior Complex Cervical Spine Surgery: Anterior Then Posterior (AP) versus Posterior Then Anterior–Posterior (PAP) Surgery
by Dong-Chan Eun, Anthony A. Suguitan, Kyung-Soo Suk, Hak-Sun Kim, Ji-Won Kwon, Seong-Hwan Moon, Yong-Ho Lee and Byung Ho Lee
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(23), 7250; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237250 - 6 Dec 2022
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2684
Abstract
The influence of the sequence of surgery in the development of prevertebral soft tissue swelling (PSTS) in staged combined multilevel anterior–posterior complex spine surgery was examined. This study was conducted as a retrospective study of patients who underwent staged combined multilevel anterior–posterior complex [...] Read more.
The influence of the sequence of surgery in the development of prevertebral soft tissue swelling (PSTS) in staged combined multilevel anterior–posterior complex spine surgery was examined. This study was conducted as a retrospective study of patients who underwent staged combined multilevel anterior–posterior complex cervical spine surgery from March 2014 to February 2021. Eighty-two patients were identified, of which fifty-seven were included in the final analysis after screening. PSTS was measured from routine serial monitoring lateral cervical radiographs prior to and after surgery for five consecutive days at each cervical level from C2 to C7 in patients who underwent anterior then posterior (AP) and posterior then anterior–posterior (PAP) surgery. The mean PSTS measurements significantly differed from the preoperative to postoperative monitoring days at all cervical levels (p = 0.0000) using repeated measures analysis of variance in both groups. PSTS was significantly greater in PAP than in AP at level C2 on postoperative day (POD) 1 (p = 0.0001). PSTS was more prominent at levels C2–4 during PODs 2–4 for both groups. In staged combined multilevel anterior–posterior complex spine surgery, PSTS is an inevitable complication. Therefore, surgeons should monitor PSTS after surgery when performing anterior–posterior complex cervical spine surgery, especially in the immediate postoperative period after PAP surgery. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

13 pages, 496 KiB  
Review
The Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Cervical Spine Surgery: Indications, Challenges, and Advances
by John Preston Wilson, Jr., Javier Brunet Vallejo, Deepak Kumbhare, Bharat Guthikonda and Stanley Hoang
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(14), 4652; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12144652 - 13 Jul 2023
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3930
Abstract
Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) has become an indispensable surgical adjunct in cervical spine procedures to minimize surgical complications. Understanding the historical development of IONM, indications for use, associated pitfalls, and recent developments will allow the surgeon to better utilize this important technology. While IONM [...] Read more.
Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) has become an indispensable surgical adjunct in cervical spine procedures to minimize surgical complications. Understanding the historical development of IONM, indications for use, associated pitfalls, and recent developments will allow the surgeon to better utilize this important technology. While IONM has shown great promise in procedures for cervical deformity, intradural tumors, or myelopathy, routine use in all cervical spine cases with moderate pathology remains controversial. Pitfalls that need to be addressed include human error, a lack of efficient communication, variable alarm warning criteria, and a non-standardized checklist protocol. As the techniques associated with IONM technology become more robust moving forward, IONM emerges as a crucial solution to updating patient safety protocols. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-5
Back to TopTop