Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2021 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 6

Critical points and effectiveness of prophylactic C4/5 foraminotomy to prevent C5 palsy after posterior cervical spine surgery

Sayfa
527–534
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Although the bony spinal parameters were similar between the F (+) and F (−) groups, the CSA in the F (+) group was significantly than that in the F (−) group in the patients without C5 palsy.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The aim of this study was to clarify the cut-off values of the spinal canal parameters as risk factors for C5 palsy after posterior cervical spine surgery with and without foraminotomy.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: One hundred three consecutive patients (67 males, 36 females; mean age = 66 years, age range = 27–87 years) with cervical myelopathy who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery at our institution were retrospectively reviewed and included in the study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Although the bony spinal parameters were similar between the F (+) and F (−) groups, the CSA in the F (+) group was significantly than that in the F (−) group in the patients without C5 palsy.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to clarify the cut-off values of the spinal canal parameters as risk factors for C5 palsy after posterior cervical spine surgery with and without foraminotomy. Methods: One hundred three consecutive patients (67 males, 36 females; mean age = 66 years, age range = 27–87 years) with cervical myelopathy who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery at our institution were retrospectively reviewed and included in the study. The first consecutive 69 patients who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery with prophylactic bilateral C4/5 foraminotomy were designated as the F (+) group. The subsequent 34 consecutive patients who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery without prophylactic bilateral C4/5 foraminotomy were designated as the F (–) group. All patients were then divided into four subgroups. In the F (+) group, patients with C5 palsy were designated as the F (+) P (+) subgroup (n = 13), while those without C5 palsy were designated as the F (+) P (−) subgroup (n = 56). In the F (−) group, patients with C5 palsy were designated as the F (−) P (+) subgroup (n = 5), while those without C5 palsy were designated as the F (−) P (−) subgroup (n = 29). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to investigate the cut-off values of the spinal canal parameters for the development of postoperative C5 palsy. The assessed spinal parameters were the gutter positions (GP), laminar inclination angles (LIA), and postoperative cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the dural sac. The risk ratios (RR) of the spinal canal parameters as risk factors for C5 palsy were evaluated. Results: The incidence of C5 palsy was similar between the F (+) group (18.8%) and the F (−) group (14.7%). The cut-off values for each spinal canal parameter in the F (+) group (GP: 0.82–0.84, LIA: 58.9–62.4°, and CSA: 189.5–200 mm 2 ) were similar to those in the F (–) group (0.81–0.89, 61.7–62.5°, and 197.5–199.5 mm 2 , respectively). In the RR results for C5 palsy, the LIA was highest in both groups. The F (+) P (−) subgroup had significantly larger mean CSA at C4/5 and C5/6 (202.3 mm 2 and 200.9 mm 2 , respectively) than the F (−) P (−) subgroup (177.3 mm 2 and 178.9 mm 2 , respectively) (P = 0.0181 and P = 0.0277, respectively). Prophylactic C4/5 foraminotomy did not specifically prevent postoperative C5 palsy due to foraminal stenosis at C4/5. Conclusion: C4/5 foraminotomy should not be recommended for avoidance of C5 palsy. Although the bony spinal parameters were similar between the F (+) and F (−) groups, the CSA in the F (+) group was significantly than that in the F (−) group in the patients without C5 palsy.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Takeuchi, K., Yokoyama, T., Wada, K., Kumagai, G., Sasaki, E., Ishibashi, Y. (2022). Critical points and effectiveness of prophylactic C4/5 foraminotomy to prevent C5 palsy after posterior cervical spine surgery. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 6, 527–534. https://ajindex.com/articles/427987

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Shiozaki T, Otsuka H, Nakata Y, et al. Spinal cord shift on magnetic resonance imaging at 24 hours after cervical laminoplasty. Spine. 2009
  2. 34(3):274-279. 10. 1097/BRS.0b013e318194e275 2. Nakashima H, Imagama S, Yukawa Y, et al. Multivariate analysis of C-5 palsy after cervical posterior fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012
  3. 17 (2):103-110. 10.3171/2012.4.SPINE11255 3. Bydon M, Macki M, Aygun N, et al. Development of postoperative C5 palsy is associated with wider posterior decompression: An analysis of 41 patients. Spine J. 2014
  4. 13(6):2861-2867. 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.040 4. Baba S, Ikuta K, Ikeuchi H, et al. Risk factor analysis for C5 palsy after double-door laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Asian Spine J. 2016
  5. 10(2):298-308. 10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.298 5. Lim CH, Roh SW, Rhim SC, Jeon SR. Clinical analysis of C5 palsy after cervical decompression surgery: Relationship between recovery duration and clinical and radiological factors. Eur Spine J. 2017
  6. 26(4):1101-1110. 10.1007/s00586- 016-4664-4 6. Nori S, Aoyama R, Ninomiya K, et al. Cervical laminoplasty of limited width prevents postoperative C5 palsy: A multivariate analysis of 263 muscle-preserving posterior decompression cases. Eur Spine J. 2017
  7. 26 (9):2393-2403. 10.1007/s00586-017-5202-8 7. Sasai K, Saito T, Akagi S, Kato I, Ohnari H, Iida H. Preventing C5 palsy after laminoplasty. Spine. 2003
  8. 28(17):1972-1977. 10.1097/01.BRS.0000083237. 94535.46 8. Komagata M, Nishiyama M, Endo K, Ikegami H, Tanaka S, Imakiire A. Prophy- laxis of C5 palsy after cervical expansive laminoplasty by bilateral partial foraminotomy. Spine J. 2004
  9. 4(6):650-655. 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.03.022 9. Katsumi K, Yamazaki A, Watanabe K, Ohashi M, Shoji H. Can prophylactic bilateral C4/C5 foraminotomy prevent postoperative C5 palsy after open-door laminoplasty? A prospective study. Spine. 2012
  10. 37(9):748-754. 10.1097/BRS. 0b013e3182326957 10. Liu G, Reyes MR, Riew KD. Why does C5palsy occur after prophylactic bilateral. Glob Spine J. 2017
  11. 7(7):696-702. 10.1177/2192568217699191 11. Ando M, Tamaki T, Matsumoto T, et al. Can postoperative deltoid weakness after cervical laminoplasty be prevented by using intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring? J Clin Monit Comput. 2019
  12. 33(1):123-132. 10.1007/s10877-018-0141-4 12. Fujiwara Y, Manabe H, Izumi B, Tanaka H, Kawai K, Tanaka N. The efficacy of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using transcranial electrically stimulated muscle-evoked potentia