Browsing by Author "Fehlings, M"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Area under the Curve: Analysis of Approach-Related Recovery Time in 165 Operative Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Patients with a 2-Year Follow-Up
    (Global Spine Journal, 2015-05-01) Challier, V; Smith, J; Shaffrey, C; Kim, HJ; Arnold, P; Liu, S; Scheer, J; Chapman, J; Protopsaltis, T; Lafage, V; Schwab, F; Massicotte, E; Yoon, ST; Fehlings, M; Ames, C
    Introduction Much debate about postoperative outcomes regarding surgical approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) exists in the literature with no clear evidence of superiority. We propose a novel method for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes by taking into account each patient's baseline at postoperative time points and analyzing the “area under the curve” (AUC), a proxy for suffering time. Patients and Methods Post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter database of patients with CSM. A total of 165 patients met the following inclusion criteria: symptomatic CSM, age older than 18 years, and 2-year follow-up with modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) and neck disability index (NDI). The anterior approach group (AAG) ( n = 110) and posterior approach group (PAG) ( n = 55) were compared at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years for each HRQOL. This comparison was repeated with normalization, using the patient's baseline as the anchor, followed by an integration and comparison of AUC. Results and Conclusion: For the first time, AUC analysis was applied to evaluating patients with CSM. Nonnormalized HRQOLs demonstrated the AAG started higher and met better standards at all times points compared with the PAG. Normalized mJOA demonstrated the PAG actually did better at 2 years, whereas NDI suggested that the AAG did better, although this was not significant. AUC analysis further supported the superiority of the PAG, with statistical significance at 1 and 2 years' time points, suggesting that patients who undergo the posterior approach may suffer less in the first 2 years of their postoperative course.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Comparison of Outcomes between Anterior and Posterior Cervical Procedures: Results of Surgery Involving Four or More Vertebral Levels from the AOSpine North America Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Study
    (Global Spine Journal, 2015-01-01) Yoon, ST; Fehlings, M; Kopjar, B; Arnold, P; Massicotte, E; Vaccaro, A; Brodke, DS; Shaffrey, C; Woodard, E; Banco, R; Chapman, J; Janssen, M; Bono, C; Sasso, R; Dekutoski, M; Gokaslan, Z; Michael, KW; Thakur, N; Heller, JG; Rhee, JM
    Introduction Debate continues about the relative merits of anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevel cervical stenosis causing myelopathy. Conclusions from previous studies were limited because one- or two-level anterior surgeries have been compared with multilevel posterior cases. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and complications of anterior versus posterior-based cervical procedures (≥ 4 levels) for patients with multilevel disease. Material and Methods Data from the AOSpine North America Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Study, a prospective, multicenter study, were analyzed. A subset of patients with myelopathy involving four or five vertebrae was analyzed in this study. The outcome measures included NDI, modified-Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, SF36v2, and Nurick grades. Adverse events were also collected in a standardized manner and externally monitored. Rates of perioperative complications (within 30 days of surgery) and delayed complications (31 days–2 years following surgery) were tabulated and stratified based on clinical factors. Results Of the 264 patients in the main study, 113 patients (42.8%) had four or more levels of surgery. There were 49 patients who underwent anterior cervical surgery (ACS, combination of anterior cervical decompression fusion ± corpectomy) and 64 patients who underwent posterior-based cervical surgeries (PCS, 45 laminectomy + fusion, 19 laminoplasty). There were statistically significant differences in age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and source of stenosis between these two groups. There was a statistically significant difference in baseline Nurick grades between groups (2.8 ACS vs. 3.3 PCS, p = 0.0075). There was no difference in any outcome measures at baseline. Outcome scores improved in both the ACS and PCS groups from baseline over a period of 2 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the anterior and posterior surgical procedures in terms of outcomes at 2 years ( p > 0.05). This was true for NDI, mJOA, SF36v2, and Nurick scores for both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. There was no significant difference in complication rates between ACS and PCS groups. Each group had 14 reported complications (total 28). Both the groups reported two postoperative C5 radiculopathies. There was one reoperation in the ACS group. Worsening of neck pain was reported in one patient who had an anterior corpectomy/fusion procedure and there was one case of infection in the PCS group. Two patients in the ACS group had worsening of myelopathy. Conclusion In patients with four or five involved vertebral levels of pathology that require surgical intervention for cervical myelopathy, both anterior and posterior surgical procedures demonstrate improved outcomes. With this dataset, we found no evidence of difference between anterior versus posterior surgical procedures in outcomes or associated complication rates. Surgical decision-making related to approach and technique to address issues in these patients can be made by surgeons based on their judgment and experience with these procedures. The limitations of this study include (1) a nonrandomized study design and (2) the grouping together of different subtypes of anterior or posterior procedures.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Controversies in cervical spine trauma: The role of timing of surgical decompression and the use of methylprednisolone sodium succinate in spinal cord injury. A narrative and updated systematic review
    (Indian Spine Journal, 2022-01-01) Hejrati, N; Rocos, B; Fehlings, M
    Traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) have devastating physical, social, and financial consequences for both patients and their families. SCIs most frequently occur at the cervical spine level, and these injuries are particularly prone to causing debilitating functional impairments. Unfortunately, no effective neuroregenerative therapeutic approaches capable of reversing lost neurologic and functional impairments exist, resulting in a large number of patients living with the persistent disability caused by a chronic cervical SCI. Over the past decades, a multitude of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic neuroprotective strategies have been intensely investigated, including the timing of surgical decompression and the role of methylprednisolone sodium succinate (MPSS) in patients with acute SCI. These strategies have been the source of vibrant debate surrounding their potential risks and benefits. Our aim in this combined narrative and updated systematic review is to provide an assessment on the timing of surgical decompression as well as the role of high-dose MPSS treatment in patients with traumatic SCIs, with a special emphasis on the cervically injured subpopulation. Based on the current literature, there is strong evidence to support early surgical decompression within 24 h of injury to promote enhanced neurologic recovery. Meanwhile, moderate evidence supports the early initiation of a 24-h high-dose MPSS treatment within 8 h of injury, particularly in patients with a cervical SCI.