Anterior approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Which? When? How?

被引:0
作者
Sanford E. Emery
机构
[1] West Virginia University,Department of Orthopaedics
来源
European Spine Journal | 2015年 / 24卷
关键词
Cervical myelopathy; Anterior approach cervical spine; Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is a degenerative disorder with an unfavorable natural history. Surgical treatment options have evolved substantially over time, with both anterior and posterior methods proving successful for certain patients with specific characteristics. Anterior decompression of the spinal canal plus fusion techniques for stabilization has several advantages and some disadvantages when compared to posterior options. Understanding the pros and cons of the approaches and techniques is critical for the surgeon to select the best operative treatment strategy for any given patient to achieve the best outcome. Multiple decision-making factors are involved, such as sagittal alignment, number of levels, shape of the pathoanatomy, age and comorbidities, instability, and pre-operative pain levels. Any or all of these factors may be relevant for a given patient, and to varying degrees of importance. Choice of operative approach will therefore be dependent on patient presentation, risks of that approach for a given patient, and to some degree surgeon experience.
引用
收藏
页码:150 / 159
页数:9
相关论文
共 331 条
[1]  
Hirai T(2011)Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy Spine 36 1940-1947
[2]  
Okawa A(2009)Recovery process following cervical laminoplasty in patients with cervical compression myelopathy: prospective cohort study Spine 34 2874-2879
[3]  
Arai Y(1998)Anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Two to seventeen-year follow-up J Bone Joint Surg Am 80 941-951
[4]  
Takahashi M(1994)Long-term follow-up studies of open-door expansive laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy Spine 19 507-510
[5]  
Kawabata S(2002)Cervical spinal stenosis: outcome after anterior corpectomy, allograft reconstruction, and instrumentation J Neurosurg 96 10-16
[6]  
Kato T(2001)Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years Spine 26 1443-1447
[7]  
Enomoto M(2010)Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy Spine 35 537-543
[8]  
Tomizawa S(2011)Anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevel cervical myelopathy, which one is better? A systematic review Eur Spine J 20 224-235
[9]  
Sakai K(2013)Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis Eur Spine J 22 1583-1593
[10]  
Torigoe I(2013)Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM Study in 264 patients Spine 38 2247-2252