Are There Differences in 2-Year Outcomes Between Two-Level Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Versus Single-Level Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion to Treat Cervical Myelopathy? A Quality Outcomes Database Study.
Date
2025-05
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Repository Usage Stats
views
downloads
Citation Stats
Attention Stats
Abstract
Background and objectives
There has been limited assessment between anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. We sought to compare PROMs from two-level ACDF with single-level ACCF procedures. We evaluate these results in the context of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, which have not been performed previously.Methods
This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database Spine Collaborative Research Study Group compared two-level ACDF and single-level ACCF at 3-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMs included arm pain Numeric Rating Scale, neck pain Numeric Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, and North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine differences in perioperative outcomes, as well as the impact of two-level ACDF vs one-level ACCF on PROMs. MCID thresholds were based off previously established limits.Results
Three hundred and thirty patients were included (236 ACDF, 94 ACCF), and the follow-up rate was 82% at 2 years. There was a significantly higher baseline age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, proportion of diabetes, osteoarthritis, ambulation dependence, and myelopathy severity in the ACCF cohort. On multivariable analysis, the ACCF group had greater average length of stay and estimated blood loss. There were no significant differences between reoperation rates or nonroutine discharge. There were similar rates of MCID achievement for PROMs at all time points.Conclusion
This study suggests that both ACDF and ACCF procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy are able to achieve similar, clinically meaningful improvements in PROMs by 2 years. Patients undergoing single-level ACCF have more estimated blood loss and longer length of stay, as well as worse baseline myelopathy. Both procedures have efficacious, durable outcomes. It is reasonable that other factors, such as radiographic characteristics and patient symptoms, may influence patient selection for ACDF vs ACCF.Type
Department
Description
Provenance
Subjects
Citation
Permalink
Published Version (Please cite this version)
Publication Info
Berlin, Connor, Sufyan Ibrahim, Praveen V Mummaneni, Andrew K Chan, Dean Chou, Kai-Ming Fu, Mohamad Bydon, Erica F Bisson, et al. (2025). Are There Differences in 2-Year Outcomes Between Two-Level Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Versus Single-Level Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion to Treat Cervical Myelopathy? A Quality Outcomes Database Study. Neurosurgery. 10.1227/neu.0000000000003518 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/32411.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
Scholars@Duke
Christopher Ignatius Shaffrey
I have more than 25 years of experience treating patients of all ages with spinal disorders. I have had an interest in the management of spinal disorders since starting my medical education. I performed residencies in both orthopaedic surgery and neurosurgery to gain a comprehensive understanding of the entire range of spinal disorders. My goal has been to find innovative ways to manage the range of spinal conditions, straightforward to complex. I have a focus on managing patients with complex spinal disorders. My patient evaluation and management philosophy is to provide engaged, compassionate care that focuses on providing the simplest and least aggressive treatment option for a particular condition. In many cases, non-operative treatment options exist to improve a patient’s symptoms. I have been actively engaged in clinical research to find the best ways to manage spinal disorders in order to achieve better results with fewer complications.
Oren N Gottfried
I specialize in the surgical management of all complex cervical, thoracic, lumbar, or sacral spinal diseases by using minimally invasive as well as standard approaches for arthritis or degenerative disease, deformity, tumors, and trauma. I have a special interest in the treatment of thoracolumbar deformities, occipital-cervical problems, and in helping patients with complex spinal issues from previously unsuccessful surgery or recurrent disease.I listen to my patients to understand their symptoms and experiences so I can provide them with the information and education they need to manage their disease. I make sure my patients understand their treatment options, and what will work best for their individual condition. I treat all my patients with care and concern – just as I would treat my family. I am available to address my patients' concerns before and after surgery. I aim to improve surgical outcomes for my patients and care of all spine patients with active research evaluating clinical and radiological results after spine surgery with multiple prospective databases. I am particularly interested in prevention of spinal deformity, infections, complications, and recurrent spinal disease. Also, I study whether patient specific variables including pelvic/sacral anatomy and sagittal spinal balance predict complications from spine surgery.
Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.