Postoperative Cervical Sagittal Imbalance Negatively Affects Outcomes After Surgery for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Overview

Journal Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2014 Nov 25

PMID 25419682

Citations 47

Authors

Marie Roguski

Edward C Benzel

Jill N Curran

Subu N Magge

Erica F Bisson

Ajit A Krishnaney

Michael P Steinmetz

William E Butler

Robert F Heary

Zoher Ghogawala

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Study Design: Prospective observational cohort study.

Objective: To determine if postoperative cervical sagittal balance is an independent predictor of health-related quality of life outcome after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Summary Of Background Data: Both ventral and dorsal fusion procedures for CSM are effective at reducing the symptoms of myelopathy. The importance of cervical sagittal balance in predicting overall health-related quality of life outcome after ventral versus dorsal surgery for CSM has not been previously explored.

Methods: A prospective, nonrandomized cohort of 49 patients undergoing dorsal and ventral fusion surgery for CSM was examined. Preoperative and postoperative C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis was measured on standing lateral cervical spine radiographs. Outcome was assessed with 2 disease-specific measures-the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale and the Oswestry Neck Disability Index and 2 generalized outcome measures-the Short-Form 36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) and Euro-QOL-5D. Assessments were performed preoperatively, and at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute).

Results: Most patients experienced improvement in all outcome measures regardless of approach. Both preoperative and postoperative C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis measurements were independent predictors of clinically significant improvement in SF-36 PCS scores (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02). The majority of patients with C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis values greater than 40 mm did not improve from an overall health-related quality of life perspective (SF-36 PCS) despite improvement in myelopathy. The postoperative sagittal balance value was inversely correlated with a clinically significant improvement of SF-36 PCS scores in patients undergoing dorsal surgery but not ventral surgery (P = 0.03 vs. P = 0.93).

Conclusion: Preoperative and postoperative sagittal balance measurements independently predict clinical outcomes after surgery for CSM.

Level Of Evidence: 2.

Citing Articles

Unveiling and Validating a Modified Method to Assess Cervical Sagittal Alignment as an Effective Substitute for Conventional C2-7 Cobb Angle.

Li W, Wang Q, Zhao Q, Zeng Z, Hu X, Lv X Clin Orthop Surg. 2025; 17(1):130-137.

PMID: 39912070 PMC: 11791497. DOI: 10.4055/cios24186.

Comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes of cervical laminoplasty versus lateral mass screw fixation in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.

Liu T, Zhang J, Deng L, He M, Tian S, Ding W BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):337.

PMID: 38671386 PMC: 11046825. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07385-2.

Two Methods of Forward Head Posture Assessment: Radiography vs. Posture and Their Clinical Comparison.

Oakley P, Moustafa I, Haas J, Betz J, Harrison D J Clin Med. 2024; 13(7).

PMID: 38610914 PMC: 11012400. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13072149.

Early radiographic outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with anatomic versus lordotic cages.

Al-Adli N, Tummala S, Oh M N Am Spine Soc J. 2024; 17:100292.

PMID: 38193109 PMC: 10772290. DOI: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100292.

Usefulness of the preoperative thoracic inlet angle in comparison to the T1 slope for predicting cervical kyphosis after laminoplasty.

Takakura K, Takasawa E, Mieda T, Tsukui T, Inomata K, Tomomatsu Y Eur Spine J. 2024; 33(3):1179-1186.

PMID: 38170271 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-08095-4.

References

Ames C, Blondel B, Scheer J, Schwab F, Le Huec J, Massicotte E . Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(22 Suppl 1):S149-60. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449. View

Gangnet N, Pomero V, Dumas R, Skalli W, Vital J . Variability of the spine and pelvis location with respect to the gravity line: a three-dimensional stereoradiographic study using a force platform. Surg Radiol Anat. 2003; 25(5-6):424-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-003-0154-6. View

Lafon M, Megret F, Meuth S, Simon O, Velandia Romero M, Lafage M . Detrimental contribution of the immuno-inhibitor B7-H1 to rabies virus encephalitis. J Immunol. 2008; 180(11):7506-15. DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.180.11.7506. View

Guerin P, Obeid I, Gille O, Bourghli A, Luc S, Pointillart V . Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011; 25(1):10-6. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31820f916c. View

Lamartina C, Berjano P, Petruzzi M, Sinigaglia A, Casero G, Cecchinato R . Criteria to restore the sagittal balance in deformity and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21 Suppl 1:S27-31. PMC: 3325388. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2236-9. View

Ferch R, Shad A, Cadoux-Hudson T, Teddy P . Anterior correction of cervical kyphotic deformity: effects on myelopathy, neck pain, and sagittal alignment. J Neurosurg. 2004; 100(1 Suppl Spine):13-9. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2004.100.1.0013. View

Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas S, Fehlings M . Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist. 2012; 19(4):409-21. DOI: 10.1177/1073858412467377. View

Vernon H, Mior S . The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14(7):409-15. View

Villavicencio A, Babuska J, Ashton A, Busch E, Roeca C, Nelson E . Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery. 2011; 68(5):1309-16. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820b51f3. View

10.

Young W . Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older persons. Am Fam Physician. 2000; 62(5):1064-70, 1073. View

11.

Smith J, Lafage V, Ryan D, Shaffrey C, Schwab F, Patel A . Association of myelopathy scores with cervical sagittal balance and normalized spinal cord volume: analysis of 56 preoperative cases from the AOSpine North America Myelopathy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(22 Suppl 1):S161-70. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb9e. View

12.

Naderi S, Ozgen S, Pamir M, Ozek M, Erzen C . Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting prognosis. Neurosurgery. 1998; 43(1):43-9; discussion 49-50. DOI: 10.1097/00006123-199807000-00028. View

13.

Ghogawala Z, Martin B, Benzel E, Dziura J, Magge S, Abbed K . Comparative effectiveness of ventral vs dorsal surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2010; 68(3):622-30. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820777cf. View

14.

Ghogawala Z, Coumans J, Benzel E, Stabile L, Barker 2nd F . Ventral versus dorsal decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgeons' assessment of eligibility for randomization in a proposed randomized controlled trial: results of a survey of the Cervical Spine Research Society. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(4):429-36. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000255068.94058.8a. View

15.

Mac-Thiong J, Transfeldt E, Mehbod A, Perra J, Denis F, Garvey T . Can c7 plumbline and gravity line predict health related quality of life in adult scoliosis?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(15):E519-27. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9c7ad. View

16.

Harrison D, HARRISON D, Cailliet R, Troyanovich S, Janik T, Holland B . Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(16):2072-8. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200008150-00011. View

17.

Farley C, Curt B, Pettigrew D, Holtz J, Dollin N, Kuntz 4th C . Spinal cord intramedullary pressure in thoracic kyphotic deformity: a cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 37(4):E224-30. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822dd69b. View

18.

Tang J, Scheer J, Smith J, Deviren V, Bess S, Hart R . The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery. 2012; 71(3):662-9. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826100c9. View

19.

Auffinger B, Lam S, Shen J, Thaci B, Roitberg B . Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: statistical versus substantial clinical benefit. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013; 155(12):2345-54. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-013-1909-4. View

20.

Carreon L, Glassman S, Campbell M, Anderson P . Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J. 2010; 10(6):469-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007. View