Next Article in Journal
Multimorbidity of Allergic Conditions in Urban Citizens of Southern China: A Real-World Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Biomechanical Advantages in Combined Anterior–Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery by Radiological Outcomes: Pedicle Screws over Lateral Mass Screws
Previous Article in Journal
Convolutional Neural Networks to Classify Alzheimer’s Disease Severity Based on SPECT Images: A Comparative Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Variation in Prevertebral Soft Tissue Swelling after Staged Combined Multilevel Anterior–Posterior Complex Cervical Spine Surgery: Anterior Then Posterior (AP) versus Posterior Then Anterior–Posterior (PAP) Surgery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm12062227
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Posterior Preventive Foraminotomy before Laminectomy Combined with Pedicle Screw Fixation May Decrease the Incidence of C5 Palsy in Complex Cervical Spine Surgery in Patients with Severe Myeloradiculopathy

by
Yong-Ho Lee
1,2,†,
Mahmoud Abdou
3,†,
Ji-Won Kwon
1,
Kyung-Soo Suk
1,
Seong-Hwan Moon
1,
You-Gun Won
1,2,
Tae-Jin Lee
1,2 and
Byung-Ho Lee
1,*
1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 04799, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei Baro Chuk Hospital, Seoul 06273, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Fayoum University College of Medicine, Fayoum 2933051, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(6), 2227; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062227
Submission received: 18 February 2023 / Revised: 3 March 2023 / Accepted: 6 March 2023 / Published: 13 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Challenges and Advances in Cervical Spine Surgery)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
C5 palsy is a frequent sequela of cervical decompression surgeries for cervical myeloradiculopathy. Although many researchers have suggested various risk factors, such as cord shifting and the correction of lordotic angles, the tethering of the C5 root beneath the narrow foramen is an independent risk factor for C5 palsy. In this study, we tried to investigate different techniques for foramen decompression with posterior cervical fusion and assess the incidence of C5 palsy with each technique depending on the order of foraminal decompression. A combined 540° approach with LMS and uncovertebrectomy was used in group 1. Group 2 combined a 540° approach with pedicle screws and posterior foraminotomy, while posterior approach only with pedicle screws and foraminotomy was used in group 3. For groups 2 and 3, prophylactic posterior foraminotomy was performed before laminectomy. Motor manual testing to assess C5 palsy, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores were determined before and after surgery. Simple radiographs, MRI and CT scans, were obtained to assess radiologic parameters preoperatively and postoperatively. A total of 362 patients were enrolled in this study: 208 in group 1, 72 in group 2, and 82 in group 3. The mean age was 63.2, 65.5, and 66.6 years in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median for fused levels was 4 for the three groups. There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of fused levels. Weight, height, comorbidities, and diagnosis were not significantly different between groups. Preoperative JOA scores were similar between groups (p = 0.256), whereas the preoperative NDI score was significantly higher in group 3 than in group 2 (p = 0.040). Mean JOA score at 12-month follow-up was 15.5 ± 1.89, 16.1 ± 1.48, and 16.1 ± 1.48 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; it was higher in group 3 compared with group 1 (p = 0.008) and in group 2 compared with group 1 (p = 0.024). NDI score at 12 months was 13, 12, and 13 in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; it was significantly better in group 3 than in group 1 (p = 0.040), but there were no other significant differences between groups. The incidence of C5 palsy was significantly lower in posterior foraminotomy groups with pedicle screws (groups 2 and 3) than in LMS with uncovertebrectomy (group 1) (p < 0.001). Thus, preventive expansive foraminotomy before decompressive laminectomy is able to significantly decrease the root tethering by stenotic lesion, and subsequently, decrease the incidence of C5 palsy associated with posterior only or combined posterior and anterior cervical fusion surgeries. Additionally, such expansive foraminotomy might be appropriate with pedicle screw insertion based on biomechanical considerations.

1. Introduction

Cervical myeloradiculopathy is the most frequent cause of spinal cord impairment in the elderly population [1,2], leading to an increase in the frequency of cervical decompressive surgery. Postoperative C5 palsy represents one of the commonest complications, occurring in up to 28.9%, mainly with fusion surgeries [3,4,5,6], and is almost always associated with severe morbidity and reduced quality of life [7].
There is no consensus about the exact cause of postoperative C5 palsy, but several hypotheses have been proposed [8]. One hypothesis suggests that it is due to dural shift with wide laminectomy, leading to the tethering of the C5 root beneath the narrow foramen [9,10]. In contrast, another study suggests that it is caused by iatrogenic foraminal stenosis during cervical lordosis correction [11]. Some authors believe it is related to symptom duration or a long period of subclinical disease before intervention [12]. Many studies confirmed that preoperative foramen size is the most significant independent risk factor for C5 palsy [4,13], but others assume it results from iatrogenic injury during decompression [14].
As preoperative foramen size plays a vital role in the development of C5 palsy according to studies in the literature, there have been no studies related to the order of foraminotomy and laminectomy, which can affect the C5 root tethering and stretch.
Therefore, we aimed to conduct this study and compare the incidence and recovery rates of C5 palsy after three different decompression and fusion strategies, including the order of foraminotomy and laminectomy performed by either foraminotomy or uncovertebrectomy.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was approved by our institutional review board and ethics committee (IRB no. 4-2021-1469). This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data included patients with cervical spine myeloradiculopathy who underwent surgical decompression at our hospital from April 2014 to January 2021. Surgical decompression was indicated for patients with severe myeloradiculopathy (with a Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score < 12). At the same time, conservative management (anti-inflammatory drugs, cervical immobilization in neck collar, physiotherapy, activity modification, pain block, and neuroplasty) was initiated for patients with mild to moderate symptoms (JOA ≥ 12) [15]. If symptoms did not improve or deteriorate with conservative treatment, surgical intervention was suggested [16]. Patients with tumors, traumatic lesions, infectious diseases, or with no C4–5 foramen stenosis were excluded from this study.
A combined anterior and posterior approach was used for patients with less lordosis associated with severe myeloradiculopathy symptoms and severe foraminal stenosis with decreased width and height based on the suggested algorithm. The anterior and posterior combined approach was performed only in cases with a k-line negative and rigid kyphosis in lesions of 3 or more stages [17]. The severity of foraminal stenosis could be graded as levels 1–2 of foraminal stenosis using the MRI Grading System for cervical foraminal stenosis from axial scan; grade 0 = absence of foraminal stenosis with the narrowest width of the neural foramen being greater than the width of the extraforaminal nerve root (EFNR); grade 1 = the narrowest width of the neural foramen equal to or greater than 50% of the width of the EFNR; grade 2 = the narrowest width of the neural foramen equal to or less than 50% of the width of the EFNR [18,19]; or grade 3 = based on the lumbar foraminal stenosis grade system from sagittal scan with perineural fat loss and decreased foraminal height [20].
To achieve better foramen decompression, direct foraminotomy or uncovertebrectomy, along with indirect decompression by increasing foraminal height through an allospacer insertion, were added during anterior surgery, and additional effective kyphosis correction was also achieved [17].
A posterior approach alone was used for patients with neutral or lordosis in radiological parameters foraminal stenosis graded 1–2 with a relatively well-preserved foraminal height that was adequately decompressed by laminectomy in addition to expansive posterior foraminotomy with pedicle screws [17,18,19].
The patients were divided into three groups: (1) combined anterior and posterior approaches with lateral mass screws (LMS) and uncovertebrectomy (group 1: PAP LMS group); combined anterior and posterior approaches with pedicle screws and foraminotomy (group 2: PAP pedicle group); and a posterior approach with pedicle screws and foraminotomy (group 3: posterior pedicle group). Notably, foraminotomy was performed for all foraminal stenosis levels before laminectomy to lessen the stretch of C5 roots in groups 2 and 3.
We intended to begin with a posterior rather than an anterior approach to allow for more uncomplicated posterior dissection and neurological decompression, as well as hemostasis and pedicle screw insertions. Then, ACDF using allospacers with foraminotomy and uncovertebrectomy was performed, followed by posterior rod assembly [21,22].
Group 1 patients underwent posterior laminectomy and fusion but no posterior foramintomy was performed; multilevel laminectomy and LMS insertion were performed from C3 to C7 [23] (Figure 1a). One week later, anterior cervical decompression and fusion with anterior uncovertebrectomy (Figure 2 and Figure 3) were performed, followed by posterior rod insertion and posterolateral fusion with autobone graft during the same session [24,25].
Groups 2 and 3 patients first underwent a posterior cervical approach (Figure 1b,c) with pedicle screw fixation used whenever the pedicle diameter permitted. Our novel free-hand technique (medial pedicle pivot point (MPPP) technique) was used for pedicle screw insertion [22]. If the pedicle was <3.5 mm or a vertebral artery anomaly was present, we avoided pedicle screws and used LMS instead [22,26,27]. Then, bilateral microscopic foraminotomy was performed using a 3 mm burr to initiate the foraminotomy before laminectomy [28]. A small portion of the inferior articular process and part of the superior articular process were drilled until a defect was created over the foramen. Bone removal was then continued using a 1 mm Kerrison punch or 1–2 mm sized cervical curette until the microhook moved freely above the nerve root [29] (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Most of the facet joint and lateral mass were removed. As a result, all of the foramen was exposed, from cephalad to caudal pedicles. Next, decompressive laminectomy was performed for central decompression, and the removed bone was cut into small pieces for a posterolateral bone graft. Group 2 patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy with additional anterior foraminotomy and fusion in the following week, using allospacers to increase forminal height and inserting a posterior rod assembly in the same session [25].
All patients underwent neurologic function monitoring intraoperatively via transcranial motor evoked potential (MEPs). This was mostly performed for the detection of deterioration of myelopathy symptoms, but according to Yanase et al., intraoperative wave changes in transcranial MEPs are predictive of postoperative C5 palsy [31]; however, there were no significant changes in MEP with patients who developed C5 palsy.
All patients underwent motor manual testing (grading muscle strength from 0 to 5) preoperatively and immediately postoperatively, following each surgical intervention [10]. The motor check was carried out by different two orthopedic surgeons. The decrease by at least one degree of deltoid muscle function has been used to define C5 palsy [10].
All patients also underwent repeat testing within the first 6 postoperative weeks. Neck Disability Index (NDI) and JOA scores for myelopathy were obtained preoperatively and at 6 and 12 postoperative months. Cervical lordosis was assessed by measuring the C2–C7 Cobb angle, C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), C2 slope, T1 slope, and T1s–CL (T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (C2–C7 Cobb angle)) on lateral radiographs preoperatively and postoperatively. Finally, all cases with pedicle screws had a postoperative CT to ensure screw position was correct.

3. Results

A total of 362 patients were enrolled in this study: 208 in group 1 (PAP with LMS), 72 in group 2 (PAP with pedicle screws), and 82 in group 3 (posterior only with pedicle screws) (Table 1).
Group 1 was relatively larger than other groups due to the later introduction of pedicle screws in our institute and the limitation of the use of pedicle screws when the pedicle axial diameter was less than 3.5 mm. So, we used the propensity score to select matched groups for our study to obtain significant results. Cases presented with myeloradiculopathy symptoms of C4–5 foramen stenosis were selected. Females composed 25.5% of patients in group 1, 43.1% of patients in group 2, and 22% of patients in group 3.
The incidence of C5 palsy was significantly lower in posterior preventive foraminotomy groups with pedicle screws (groups 2 and 3) than LMS group with uncovertebrectomy (group 1) (p < 0.001). It was (10.1%) in group 1, 4.2% in group 2, and 0% in group 3. C5 palsy was observed only in groups 1 and 2, and all palsies in group 1 occurred in the interval between the posterior and anterior procedures. All cases recovered within 3–6 postoperative months.
The preoperative C2–C7 Cobb angles were 7, 5.5, and 9 degrees in groups 1–3, respectively; they were significantly higher in group 3 than in group 2 (p = 0.029), but there were no other significant differences between groups. Preoperative C2–C7 SVA was 19, 21, and 19.5 mm in groups 1–3, respectively, with no significant differences between groups (Table 2).
Postoperatively, the mean C2–C7 Cobb angle was 18, 26, and 13 degrees in groups 1–3, respectively; the difference between group 2 and the two other groups was highly significant (p < 0.001 for both) (Table 3). Postoperative C2–C7 SVA was 23.5, 21.5, and 22 mm in groups 1–3, respectively; there was no significant difference between groups (p = 0.322). Postoperative T1s–CL was 13, 2, and 12 degrees for groups 1–3, respectively; it was significantly better in group 2 than in groups 1 and 3 (p < 0.001 for both), but there were no other significant differences between groups. To summarize, cervical lordosis was better corrected in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3 and was best corrected in group 2.
Preoperative JOA scores were similar between groups (p = 0.256), whereas the preoperative NDI score was significantly higher in group 3 than in group 2 (p = 0.040) (Table 4). Preoperative NDI scores were 20, 19, and 20 in groups 1–3, respectively. At 12 months, NDI (p = 0.046 and JOA (p = 0.011) scores differed significantly between groups. Mean JOA score at 12-month follow-up was 15.5 ± 1.89, 16.1 ± 1.48, and 16.1 ± 1.48 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; it was higher in group 3 compared with group 1 (p = 0.008) and in group 2 compared with group 1 (p = 0.024). NDI score at 12 months was 13, 12, and 13 in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; it was significantly better in group 3 than in group 1 (p = 0.040), but there were no other significant differences between groups.

4. Discussion

Surgical intervention is suggested for patients with severe or progressive cervical myeloradiculopathy symptoms [32]. C5 palsy is a frequent complication of cervical decompression surgery, with a reported incidence of up to 28.9% [3,4,5].
According to Shurab Rachmani et al., ligamentum flavum does not enter the foramen, unlike the lumbar spine. Therefore, it is exposed to the risk of thermal damage during manipulation around the foramen. Takenaga et al. reported lower C5 palsy in the group using chilled irrigation than in the control group in 400 cases of open door laminoplasty [33,34]. In all cases of this study, during manipulation around the foramen, in order to reduce the possibility of thermal injury that may occur during drilling, saline irrigation was performed.
Posterior cervical decompression (laminectomy or laminoplasty) is an effective treatment for myeloradiculopathy [35]. When performed alone, decompression surgery has a relatively low incidence of C5 palsy [36]. However, laminectomy and laminoplasty are less effective than a fusion for improving myeloradiculopathy symptoms and neck pain/disability, especially in patients with deformity or instability or severe foraminal stenosis [27,37,38,39].
Thus, it is necessary to identify the best strategy to resolve myeloradiculopathy symptoms and prevent C5 palsy.
Bilateral prophylactic foraminotomy [40] has been recommended to decrease the risk of C5 palsy associated with posterior decompression procedures. In their literature review, Pan et al. [3] noted that foraminotomy was a significant independent factor in reducing postoperative C5 palsy. Similarly, Imagama et al. [41] recommended foraminotomy based on the results of their large, multicenter study. Nevertheless, studies documenting a lower incidence of C5 palsy (0.6%) after foraminotomy involved only non-fusion procedures [36]. To our knowledge, only one study examined the incidence of C5 palsy with laminectomy and fusion using LMS in association with posterior foraminotomy [42]. In that study, the C5 palsy incidence was higher (14.1%) [42] and similar to the rates previously reported for non-foraminotomy fusion procedures [3,6]. This may have been due to insufficient foraminotomy to preserve sufficient bone for LMS. [30] The incidences in our foraminotomy groups (groups 2 and 3) were much lower (4.2% and 0%, respectively), suggesting that effective foraminotomy is generally not enough for LMS.
Pedicle screws provide a better opportunity for sufficient aggressive foraminotomy with their anatomical advantage because of a superior entry point in comparison to LMS that allows the safe removal of most of the facet joint. We can expose the whole foramen from the cephalad to caudal pedicle screws [22]. In addition to a biomechanical advantage, compared with LMS, pedicle screw use allows aggressive foraminotomy without reducing stability. Additionally, pedicle screws are much better than LMS in preventing cage subsidence with time, which preserves foramen height and maintains cervical lordosis when a combined approach is used [30]. Despite the previous advantage, pedicle screws are not widely used because of fears of neurovascular complications, especially with the lack of navigation systems in most institutes. However, pedicle screws have become popular at our institute thanks to our novel free-hand technique (MPPP) that does not require a navigation system and no documented complications were observed in our previous cohort [22]. Additionally, the three cases who developed C5 palsy had no abnormal postoperative CT findings.
When using LMS, we initially added uncovertebrectomy to provide better foramen decompression, but patients who underwent posterior foraminotomy group 1, as in groups 2 and 3, had a lower C5 palsy rate than those who underwent uncovertebrectomy (10.1% in group 1 versus 4.2% in group 2). This may have been because of the delay in foramen decompression by uncovertebrectomy, as all cases of C5 palsy occurred during the interval between approaches in the LMS group. Owing to this, we were also keen on performing foraminotomy in pedicle groups even before the laminectomy out of concern that a delayed procedure might not be able to stop the abrupt tethering of the C5 root caused by the sudden dural shift after laminectomy. Thus, we recommend performing foraminotomy before laminectomy, which causes the root to run momentarily before the abrupt dural shift. In addition, this will make the procedure technically easier due to less bleeding in the surgical field. Of course, it is possible to combine posterior foraminotomy with LMS; however, the most fixation stability and the most stressed area in LMS is the inferomedial part of the entry point according to our previous biomechanical study, so we were sure that such aggressive foraminotomy would lead to weak bone purchase with LMS [30].
Collectively, foramen decompression by either uncovertebrectomy or foraminotomy resulted in substantially lower C5 palsy rates (10.1% in group 1, 4.2% in group 2, and 0% in group 3) than previously reported in laminectomy fusion studies. In the meta-analysis by Wang et al., the incidence after posterior fusion was 12.2% overall, including 13.3% in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and 13.1% in those with the ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament [6,43]. The incidence of C5 palsy was even higher in some studies: 28.9% after posterior laminectomy and fusion in the study reported by Blizzard et al. [3,44] and 36.4% after combination surgery in the study by Chang et al. [45]. Although our C5 palsy rates were low, we surmise that the occurrence of this complication may be related to the severity of the foraminal stenosis or the duration of preoperative symptoms, as we used a combined approach in patients with severe stenosis to preserve the foramen height for better foramen decompression, as has been performed in previous studies [42,46]. Thus, it may be impossible to eliminate C5 palsy. Of note, a few authors have recommended against foramen decompression [47]. For example, Cho et al. suggested that foramen decompression leads to the excessive manipulation of nerve roots [48]. However, our experience indicates that microscopic decompression with a 3 mm burr and small 1 mm curette or Kerrison punch is relatively safe and effective.
We also examined which type of strategy led to the most improvement in myelopathy symptoms, neck pain, and disability. It is well known that fusion surgery provides better outcomes for myelopathy and neck disability symptoms [27,49]. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal degree of lordosis correction, although when postoperative cervical alignment is near neutral, it is assumed that this is a better outcome [50,51]. The preoperative C2–C7 Cobb angle was significantly better in group 3 than in the other groups, as we reserved the combined approaches for patients with severe stenosis and deformity. The preoperative C2 slope was significantly higher in group 2 than in groups 1 and 3, indicating that group 2 required increased surgical correction. The postoperative correction of C2–C7 lordosis was significantly greater in group 2 than in the other groups, emphasizing the tremendous corrective power of combined approaches, mainly when accomplished with pedicle screws. The delta C2 slope angle also showed significantly greater correction in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3.
The postoperative C2–C7 Cobb angle values were 18, 26, and 13 degrees in our three groups, which were very close to the average values of 15–25 degrees reported by Gore et al. and Blondel et al. [52,53]. C2–C7 SVA values were 23.5, 21.5, and 22 mm in our three groups, which were also similar to the average value (22.4 mm) reported by Blondel et al. [53]. Of note, an SVA >40 mm is associated with high levels of disability [54]. These parameters showed preserved cervical alignment in all three groups, although the C2–C7 Cobb angle was better with the combined posterior and anterior approaches, especially in group 2. As a consequence, myelopathy symptoms improved in all groups, consistent with the results of previous studies [27,49].
A problem with kyphosis correction is that it may increase the dural shift, in addition to decreasing the foramen height, and thereby increase tension on the C5 root [6,7,10]. However, this did not seem to occur in our patients, as group 2 underwent significant kyphosis correction but had a lower C5 palsy rate compared to group 1, suggesting that C5 palsy is the result of not only dural shift but also the stretch of C5 root from foraminal stenosis. Therefore, we anticipate that preventive expansive foraminotomy before laminectomy will result in a lower incidence of C5 palsy with better cervical anatomic parameters.
Although conservative treatment is usually successful for treating C5 palsy, and all cases recovered within a few months, with no difference in time to recovery between groups [7,10], recovery may be prolonged or may not even occur in some patients [55]. As C5 palsy remains a burden on the economy and the patient’s quality of life, more research is warranted to decrease its incidence [7].
One of the major concerns of the study design is how to control and classify the patients who would undergo PAP surgery and posterior-only surgery based on the severity of central and foraminal stenosis. This, however, is relevant to the unique healthcare system of the authors’ country.
In South Korea, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) reviews and assesses healthcare costs and healthcare service quality, in addition to supporting the national health insurance policy in determining medical fee categories and drug prices. Ministry of Health and Welfare (MoHW) oversees the national health insurance system. There are two other institutions, the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS), which serves as the insurer, and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), which conducts reviews and the assessment of medical fees. The reimbursement process starts with the health institution filing a claim for medical fees to HIRA. After HIRA reviews the claim, it notifies the NHIS of the results and contacts the health institutions regarding payment. The “Fee-for-Service (FFS)” is the traditional reimbursement system in South Korea. In order to reduce the number of unnecessary services, the payment standard is very strictly controlled [56].
If PAP surgery was carried out for severe myeloradiculopathy but the reviewers at the HIRA do not agree with the PAP surgery, then the fee for one of posterior or anterior surgery would be cancelled and not be paid to the hospital and surgeons. This procedure could control the standardized surgical decision for the patients with severe myeloradiculopathy, and those with similar severity of diseases could be treated with the same surgical procedures.

5. Conclusions

Although C5 palsy after cervical decompression surgery cannot be avoided entirely, particularly in patients with severe foraminal stenosis, preventive expansive foraminotomy before decompressive laminectomy can significantly decrease root tethering by stenotic lesion and, as a result, decrease the incidence of C5 palsy associated with posterior and combined posterior and anterior cervical fusion surgeries. Notably, wider bilateral foraminotomy could be performed when using pedicle screws compared to using LMS, based on biomechanical considerations. This is the first case series of preventive foraminotomy before laminectomy with a posterior cervical fusion using pedicle screws, and additional prospective studies are required to further assess this technique.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, all authors; methodology, all authors; software, M.A., B.-H.L. and J.-W.K.; validation, M.A., J.-W.K., B.-H.L., S.-H.M., K.-S.S., Y.-G.W. and T.-J.L.; formal analysis, M.A. and B.-H.L.; investigation, Y.-H.L., M.A., J.-W.K. and B.-H.L.; resources, M.A., J.-W.K., B.-H.L. and K.-S.S.; data curation, M.A., B.-H.L. and J.-W.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-H.L., M.A. and B.-H.L.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, M.A. and B.-H.L.; supervision, S.-H.M.; project administration, M.A. and B.-H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund grant, funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT; Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; Ministry of Health & Welfare; Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) (Project Number: KMDF_PR_20200901_0304).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea (IRB no. 4-2021-1469, 08 December 2021), for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

The study was retrospectively approved by our institutional review board and ethics committee with a waiver of consent for the enrolled subjects.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with a minor correction to the Institutional Review Board Statement and Informed Consent Statement. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.

References

  1. Kalsi-Ryan, S.; Karadimas, S.K.; Fehlings, M.G. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: The clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscience 2013, 19, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nouri, A.; Tetreault, L.; Singh, A.; Karadimas, S.K.; Fehlings, M.G. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: Epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine 2015, 40, E675–E693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pan, F.-M.; Wang, S.-J.; Ma, B.; Wu, D.-S. C5 nerve root palsy after posterior cervical spine surgery: A review of the literature. J. Orthop. Surg. 2017, 25, 2309499016684502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pennington, Z.; Lubelski, D.; Westbroek, E.M.; Cottrill, E.; Ehresman, J.; Goodwin, M.L.; Lo, S.-F.; Witham, T.F.; Theodore, N.; Bydon, A. Spinal cord float back is not an independent predictor of postoperative c5 palsy in patients undergoing posterior cervical decompression. Spine J. 2020, 20, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lee, S.-H.; Suk, K.-S.; Kang, K.-C.; Cho, S.-W.; Juh, H.-S.; Lee, J.-H.; Kim, K.-T. Outcomes and related factors of c5 palsy following cervical laminectomy with instrumented fusion compared with laminoplasty. Spine 2016, 41, E574–E579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cherian, J.; Mayer, R.R.; Haroun, K.B.; Winnegan, L.R.; Omeis, I. Contribution of lordotic correction on c5 palsy following cervical laminectomy and fusion. Neurosurgery 2016, 79, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Miller, J.A.; Lubelski, D.; Alvin, M.D.; Benzel, E.C.; Mroz, T.E. C5 palsy after posterior cervical decompression and fusion: Cost and quality-of-life implications. Spine J. 2014, 14, 2854–2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yang, B.; Li, H.; Wang, D.; He, X.; Zhang, C.; Yang, P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative intravenous tranexamic acid use in spinal surgery. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e55436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tsuji, T.; Matsumoto, M.; Nakamura, M.; Ishii, K.; Fujita, N.; Chiba, K.; Watanabe, K. Factors associated with postoperative c5 palsy after expansive open-door laminoplasty: Retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis. Eur. Spine J. 2017, 26, 2410–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bydon, M.; Macki, M.; Kaloostian, P.; Sciubba, D.M.; Wolinsky, J.-P.; Gokaslan, Z.L.; Belzberg, A.J.; Bydon, A.; Witham, T.F. Incidence and prognostic factors of c5 palsy: A clinical study of 1001 cases and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 2014, 74, 595–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kurakawa, T.; Miyamoto, H.; Kaneyama, S.; Sumi, M.; Uno, K. C5 nerve palsy after posterior reconstruction surgery: Predictive risk factors of the incidence and critical range of correction for kyphosis. Eur. Spine J. 2016, 25, 2060–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zheng, C.; Nie, C.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, M.; Lyu, F.; Jiang, J.; Xia, X. Preoperative electrophysiologic assessment of c5-innervated muscles in predicting c5 palsy after posterior cervical decompression. Eur. Spine J. 2021, 30, 1681–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lubelski, D.; Derakhshan, A.; Nowacki, A.S.; Wang, J.C.; Steinmetz, M.P.; Benzel, E.C.; Mroz, T.E. Predicting c5 palsy via the use of preoperative anatomic measurements. Spine J. 2014, 14, 1895–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, S.; Lee, S.-H.; Kim, E.-S.; Eoh, W. Clinical and radiographic analysis of c5 palsy after anterior cervical decompression and fusion for cervical degenerative disease. Clin. Spine Surg. 2014, 27, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shiban, E.; Meyer, B. Treatment considerations of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurol. Clin. Pract. 2014, 4, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kadanka, Z.; Mareš, M.; Bednarík, J.; Smrcka, V.; Krbec, M.; Stejskal, L.; Chaloupka, R.; Dagmar, S.; Novotný, O.; Urbánek, I. Approaches to spondylotic cervical myelopathy: Conservative: Versus: Surgical results in a 3-year follow-up study. Spine Phila. 2002, 27, 2205–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, D.-H.; Park, S.; Lee, W.S.; Byun, C.W.; Seok, S.Y.; Cho, J.H.; Hwang, C.J.; Lee, C.S.; Lee, H.R. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy for cervical myelopathy with rigid kyphosis. Neurospine 2020, 17, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, S.; Lee, J.W.; Chai, J.W.; Yoo, H.J.; Kang, Y.; Seo, J.; Ahn, J.M.; Kang, H.S. A new mri grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis based on axial t2-weighted images. Korean J. Radiol. 2015, 16, 1294–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Seo, J.; Suk, K.-S.; Kwon, J.-W.; Kim, N.; Lee, B.H.; Moon, S.-H.; Kim, H.-S.; Lee, H.-M. Cervical foraminal stenosis as a risk factor for cervical kyphosis following cervical laminoplasty. Spine J. 2022, 22, 1271–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, S.; Lee, J.W.; Yeom, J.S.; Kim, K.-J.; Kim, H.-J.; Chung, S.K.; Kang, H.S. A practical mri grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010, 194, 1095–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eun, D.-C.; Suguitan, A.A.; Suk, K.-S.; Kim, H.-S.; Kwon, J.-W.; Moon, S.-H.; Lee, Y.-H.; Lee, B.H. Variation in prevertebral soft tissue swelling after staged combined multilevel anterior–posterior complex cervical spine surgery: Anterior then posterior (ap) versus posterior then anterior–posterior (pap) surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 7250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kwon, J.-W.; Arreza, E.O.; Suguitan, A.A.; Lee, S.-B.; Sung, S.; Park, Y.; Ha, J.-W.; Kim, T.H.; Moon, S.-H.; Lee, B.H. Medial pedicle pivot point using preoperative computed tomography morphometric measurements for cervical pedicle screw insertion: A novel technique and case series. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Heller, J.G.; Carlson, G.D.; Abitbol, J.-J.; Garfin, S.R. Anatomic comparison of the roy-camille and magerl techniques for screw placement in the lower cervical spine. Spine 1991, 16, S552–S557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mella, P.; Suk, K.-S.; Kim, H.-S.; Lee, H.-M.; Moon, S.-H.; Park, S.-J.; Lee, B.-H.; Shin, J.-W. Acdf with total en bloc resection of uncinate in foraminal stenosis of the cervical spine: Comparison with conventional acdf. Clin. Spine Surg. 2021, 34, E237–E242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Suk, K.-S.; Jimenez, K.A.; Jo, J.H.; Kim, H.-S.; Lee, H.-M.; Moon, S.-H.; Lee, B.H. Anterior plate-screws and lower postoperative t1 slope affect cervical allospacer failures in multi-level acdf surgery: Anterior versus posterior fixation. Glob. Spine J. 2021, 13, 2192568221991515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bozbuga, M.; Ozturk, A.; Ari, Z.; Sahinoglu, K.; Bayraktar, B.; Cecen, A. Morphometric evaluation of subaxial cervical vertebrae for surgical application of transpedicular screw fixation. Spine 2004, 29, 1876–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abumi, K. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Posterior decompression and pedicle screw fixation. Eur. Spine J. 2015, 24, 186–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dodwad, S.-J.M.; Dodwad, S.-N.M.; Prasarn, M.L.; Savage, J.W.; Patel, A.A.; Hsu, W.K. Posterior cervical foraminotomy: Indications, technique, and outcomes. Clin. Spine Surg. 2016, 29, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bydon, M.; Mathios, D.; Macki, M.; De La Garza-Ramos, R.; Sciubba, D.M.; Witham, T.F.; Wolinsky, J.-P.; Gokaslan, Z.L.; Bydon, A. Long-term patient outcomes after posterior cervical foraminotomy: An analysis of 151 cases. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2014, 21, 727–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lee, S.-B.; Lee, H.-M.; Park, T.-H.; Lee, S.J.; Kwon, Y.-W.; Moon, S.-H.; Lee, B.H. Biomechanical comparison of posterior fixation combinations with an allograft spacer between the lateral mass and pedicle screws. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yanase, M.; Matsuyama, Y.; Mori, K.; Nakamichi, Y.; Yano, T.; Naruse, T.; Sakai, Y.; Imagama, S.; Ito, Z.; Yukawa, Y. Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring of c5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty. Clin. Spine Surg. 2010, 23, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kadaňka, Z.; Bednařík, J.; Novotný, O.; Urbánek, I.; Dušek, L. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 1533–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Rahmani, M.S.; Terai, H.; Akhgar, J.; Suzuki, A.; Toyoda, H.; Hoshino, M.; Tamai, K.; Ahmadi, S.A.; Hayashi, K.; Takahashi, S.; et al. Anatomical analysis of human ligamentum flavum in the cervical spine: Special consideration to the attachments, coverage, and lateral extent. J. Orthop. Sci. 2017, 22, 994–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Takenaka, S.; Hosono, N.; Mukai, Y.; Tateishi, K.; Fuji, T. Significant reduction in the incidence of C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty using chilled irrigation water. Bone Jt. J. 2016, 98, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Machino, M.; Ando, K.; Kobayashi, K.; Morozumi, M.; Tanaka, S.; Kanbara, S.; Ito, S.; Inoue, T.; Ito, K.; Kato, F. Postoperative kyphosis in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Cut-off preoperative angle for predicting the postlaminoplasty kyphosis. Spine 2020, 45, 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ohashi, M.; Yamazaki, A.; Watanabe, K.; Katsumi, K.; Shoji, H. Two-year clinical and radiological outcomes of open-door cervical laminoplasty with prophylactic bilateral c4–c5 foraminotomy in a prospective study. Spine 2014, 39, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuo, C.-H.; Kuo, Y.-H.; Chang, C.-C.; Chang, H.-K.; Fay, L.-Y.; Wu, J.-C.; Huang, W.-C.; Cheng, H.; Tu, T.-H. Combined anterior and posterior decompression with fusion for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Front. Surg. 2022, 8, 730133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lambrechts, M.J.; Tran, K.; Conaway, W.; Karamian, B.A.; Goswami, K.; Li, S.; O’Connor, P.; Brush, P.; Canseco, J.; Kaye, I.D.; et al. Modified frailty index as a predictor of postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes after posterior cervical decompression and fusion. Asian Spine J. 2023; online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Park, S.; Lee, D.-H.; Lee, C.S.; Hwang, C.-J.; Yang, J.J.; Cho, J.H. Anterior decompression and fusion for the treatment of cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A narrative review. Asian Spine J. 2023; online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hirabayashi, S.; Kitagawa, T.; Yamamoto, I.; Yamada, K.; Kawano, H. Postoperative c5 palsy: Conjectured causes and effective countermeasures. Spine Surg. Relat. Res. 2019, 3, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Imagama, S.; Matsuyama, Y.; Yukawa, Y.; Kawakami, N.; Kamiya, M.; Kanemura, T.; Ishiguro, N. C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty: A multicentre study. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol. 2010, 92, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kang, K.-C.; Suk, K.-S.; Kim, H.-S.; Moon, S.-H.; Lee, H.-M.; Seo, J.-H.; Kim, S.-M.; Jin, S.-Y.; Mella, P. Preoperative risk factors of c5 nerve root palsy after laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy. Clin. Spine Surg. 2017, 30, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wang, T.; Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Ding, W.-Y. Incidence of c5 nerve root palsy after cervical surgery: A meta-analysis for last decade. Medicine 2017, 96, e8560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blizzard, D.J.; Gallizzi, M.A.; Sheets, C.; Klement, M.R.; Kleeman, L.T.; Caputo, A.M.; Eure, M.; Brown, C.R. The role of iatrogenic foraminal stenosis from lordotic correction in the development of c5 palsy after posterior laminectomy and fusion. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2015, 10, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chang, P.-Y.; Chan, R.-C.; Tsai, Y.-A.; Huang, W.-C.; Cheng, H.; Wang, J.-C.; Huang, S.-F. Quantitative measures of functional outcomes and quality of life in patients with c5 palsy. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2013, 76, 378–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kang, K.-C.; Jang, T.S.; Jung, C.H. Cervical radiculopathy: Focus on factors for better surgical outcomes and operative techniques. Asian Spine J. 2022, 16, 995–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bydon, M.; Macki, M.; Aygun, N.; Sciubba, D.M.; Wolinsky, J.-P.; Witham, T.F.; Gokaslan, Z.L.; Bydon, A. Development of postoperative c5 palsy is associated with wider posterior decompressions: An analysis of 41 patients. Spine J. 2014, 14, 2861–2867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Choi, K.-C.; Ahn, Y.; Kang, B.-U.; Ahn, S.-T.; Lee, S.-H. Motor palsy after posterior cervical foraminotomy: Anatomical consideration. World Neurosurg. 2013, 79, 405.e1–405.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Miyamoto, H.; Maeno, K.; Uno, K.; Kakutani, K.; Nishida, K.; Sumi, M. Outcomes of surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy accompanying local kyphosis (comparison between laminoplasty alone and posterior reconstruction surgery using the screw-rod system). Eur. Spine J. 2014, 23, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gadia, A.; Shah, K.; Nene, A. Cervical kyphosis. Asian Spine J. 2019, 13, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Steinmetz, M.P.; Stewart, T.J.; Kager, C.D.; Benzel, E.C.; Vaccaro, A.R. Cervical deformity correction. Neurosurgery 2007, 60, S1–S90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gore, D.R.; Sepic, S.B.; Gardner, G.M. Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Spine 1986, 11, 521–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Scheer, J.K.; Tang, J.A.; Smith, J.S.; Acosta, F.L.; Protopsaltis, T.S.; Blondel, B.; Bess, S.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Deviren, V.; Lafage, V. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: A review. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2013, 19, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Tang, J.A.; Scheer, J.K.; Smith, J.S.; Deviren, V.; Bess, S.; Hart, R.A.; Lafage, V.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Schwab, F.; Ames, C.P. The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 2015, 76, S14–S21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Oh, J.K.; Hong, J.T.; Kang, D.H.; Kim, S.-W.; Kim, S.W.; Kim, Y.J.; Chung, C.K.; Shin, J.J.; Yi, S.; Lee, J.K. Epidemiology of c5 palsy after cervical spine surgery: A 21-center study. Neurospine 2019, 16, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hira (Health Insurances Review and Assessment Services); Healthecare System in Korea. Available online: https://www.Hira.Or.Kr/eng/about/06/02/index.Html (accessed on 6 February 2023).
Jcm 12 02227 g001aJcm 12 02227 g001bJcm 12 02227 g001c
Figure 1. (A) Combined posterior and anterior approach with lateral mass screws (LMS) at C3–C7 and pedicle screws at C7 (Group 1: PAP LMS with uncovertebrectomy). (B) Combined posterior and anterior approach with pedicle screw fixation at C3–C7 and multiple foraminotomies (Group 2: PAP pedicle with foraminotomy). Both groups 1 and 2 demonstrated severe foraminal stenosis with decreased foraminal height, which was resolved through additional ACDF surgery. (C) Posterior approach with pedicle screws at C3–C7 and multiple foraminotomies (Group 3: posterior pedicle with foraminotomy). Compared with groups 1 and 2, group 3 demonstrated relatively well-preserved foraminal height, although with foraminal stenosis, which could be decompressed successfully by posterior foraminotomy only.
Figure 1. (A) Combined posterior and anterior approach with lateral mass screws (LMS) at C3–C7 and pedicle screws at C7 (Group 1: PAP LMS with uncovertebrectomy). (B) Combined posterior and anterior approach with pedicle screw fixation at C3–C7 and multiple foraminotomies (Group 2: PAP pedicle with foraminotomy). Both groups 1 and 2 demonstrated severe foraminal stenosis with decreased foraminal height, which was resolved through additional ACDF surgery. (C) Posterior approach with pedicle screws at C3–C7 and multiple foraminotomies (Group 3: posterior pedicle with foraminotomy). Compared with groups 1 and 2, group 3 demonstrated relatively well-preserved foraminal height, although with foraminal stenosis, which could be decompressed successfully by posterior foraminotomy only.
Jcm 12 02227 g001aJcm 12 02227 g001bJcm 12 02227 g001c
Jcm 12 02227 g002
Figure 2. PAP LMS with uncovertebrectomy technique. (A) Preoperative CT axial image showing foraminal stenosis. (B) Postoperative axial image showing uncovertebrectomy with LMS and allospacer. Depending on the amount of dural shift, some risk of tethering of the C5 root still remains (marked with *). (C) Preoperative CT sagittal image showing severe C4–C5 foraminal stenosis. (D) Postoperative CT sagittal image showing the extent of foramen height, in addition to an uncovertebrectomy in the presence of the allospacer and LMS. (E) Preoperative CT coronal image showing foraminal stenosis. (F) Postoperative CT coronal image showing uncovertebrectomy. CT, computed tomography; LMS, lateral mass screws; PAP, posterior anterior–posterior.
Figure 2. PAP LMS with uncovertebrectomy technique. (A) Preoperative CT axial image showing foraminal stenosis. (B) Postoperative axial image showing uncovertebrectomy with LMS and allospacer. Depending on the amount of dural shift, some risk of tethering of the C5 root still remains (marked with *). (C) Preoperative CT sagittal image showing severe C4–C5 foraminal stenosis. (D) Postoperative CT sagittal image showing the extent of foramen height, in addition to an uncovertebrectomy in the presence of the allospacer and LMS. (E) Preoperative CT coronal image showing foraminal stenosis. (F) Postoperative CT coronal image showing uncovertebrectomy. CT, computed tomography; LMS, lateral mass screws; PAP, posterior anterior–posterior.
Jcm 12 02227 g002
Jcm 12 02227 g003
Figure 3. Illustration showing the effects of posterior decompression alone, compared with other techniques of foramen decompression. (A) Laminectomy alone with lateral mass screws shows tethering of the C5 root with sudden dural shift inside the narrow foramen. (B) Uncovertebrectomy with lateral mass screws. Although the effective decompression of the C5 root is achieved, this technique does not eliminate the possibility of C5 root impingement because the lateral mass is preserved for better screw purchase. (C) Posterior foraminotomy and laminectomy with pedicle screws. Posterior foraminotomy was carried out before laminectomy, which offers the least chance of the impingement of the C5 root after the dural posterior shift with laminectomy. However, the uncinate process still compresses the root, especially when foraminal stenosis has severely decreased foraminal height. (D) Adding the anterior decompression and insertion of allospacers to maximize the size of the foramen after posterior foraminotomy in the PAP pedicle group. PAP, posterior anterior–posterior.
Figure 3. Illustration showing the effects of posterior decompression alone, compared with other techniques of foramen decompression. (A) Laminectomy alone with lateral mass screws shows tethering of the C5 root with sudden dural shift inside the narrow foramen. (B) Uncovertebrectomy with lateral mass screws. Although the effective decompression of the C5 root is achieved, this technique does not eliminate the possibility of C5 root impingement because the lateral mass is preserved for better screw purchase. (C) Posterior foraminotomy and laminectomy with pedicle screws. Posterior foraminotomy was carried out before laminectomy, which offers the least chance of the impingement of the C5 root after the dural posterior shift with laminectomy. However, the uncinate process still compresses the root, especially when foraminal stenosis has severely decreased foraminal height. (D) Adding the anterior decompression and insertion of allospacers to maximize the size of the foramen after posterior foraminotomy in the PAP pedicle group. PAP, posterior anterior–posterior.
Jcm 12 02227 g003
Jcm 12 02227 g004
Figure 4. Posterior foraminotomy in the posterior pedicle group. (A) Preoperative CT axial image showing foraminal stenosis. (B) Postoperative axial image showing foraminotomy and laminectomy with pedicle screws. (C) Preoperative CT sagittal image showing foraminal stenosis. (D) Postoperative CT sagittal image showing extensive foraminotomy from the cephalic to caudal pedicles. (E) Intraoperative photographs showing foramen decompression and pedicle screws before and after expansive laminectomy. It is our surgical preference to perform foraminotomy before laminectomy. Arrow indicates a pre-drilled entry point for lateral mass screws. This figure is present to demonstrate the contrast regarding the amount of foraminotomy. When pedicle screws are used, expansive foraminotomy can be carried out from pedicle to pedicle. In contrast, when LMS is used, such expansive foraminotomy cannot be performed to preserve sufficient bone stock to secure the stability of lateral mass screw fixation, which has been proven by biomechanical study [30]. LMS, lateral mass screws; CT, computed tomography.
Figure 4. Posterior foraminotomy in the posterior pedicle group. (A) Preoperative CT axial image showing foraminal stenosis. (B) Postoperative axial image showing foraminotomy and laminectomy with pedicle screws. (C) Preoperative CT sagittal image showing foraminal stenosis. (D) Postoperative CT sagittal image showing extensive foraminotomy from the cephalic to caudal pedicles. (E) Intraoperative photographs showing foramen decompression and pedicle screws before and after expansive laminectomy. It is our surgical preference to perform foraminotomy before laminectomy. Arrow indicates a pre-drilled entry point for lateral mass screws. This figure is present to demonstrate the contrast regarding the amount of foraminotomy. When pedicle screws are used, expansive foraminotomy can be carried out from pedicle to pedicle. In contrast, when LMS is used, such expansive foraminotomy cannot be performed to preserve sufficient bone stock to secure the stability of lateral mass screw fixation, which has been proven by biomechanical study [30]. LMS, lateral mass screws; CT, computed tomography.
Jcm 12 02227 g004
Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the studied groups.
Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the studied groups.
PAP LMS (I)
(n = 208)		PAP Pedicle (II)
(n = 72)		Post. Pedicle (III)
(n = 82)		p-Value
Age/year
  • Mean ± SD
63.22 ± 10.665.52 ± 9.666.62 ± 12.1=0.037 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.122II vs. III = 0.533I vs. III =0.017
Sex =0.005 ***
  • Female
53 (25.5%)31 (43.1%)18 (22%)
  • Male
155 (74.5%)41 (56.9%)64 (78%)
Weight/kg
  • Mean ± SD
64.12 ± 5.864.23 ± 5.763.64 ± 5.2=0.894 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.992II vs. III = 0.789I vs. III = 0.824
Height/kg
  • Mean ± SD
159.11 ± 6.6159.61 ± 6.3158.63 ± 6.0=0.833 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.964II vs. III = 0.624I vs. III = 0.701
DM39 (18.8%)10 (13.9%)17 (20.7%)=0.524 ***
HTN69 (33.2%)28 (38.9%)29 (35.4%)=0.675 ***
Smoker69 (33.2%)25 (34.7%)30 (36.6%)=0.855 ***
Alcohol Abuse87 (41.8%)31 (43.1%)37 (45.1%)=0.877 ***
Osteoporosis62 (29.8%)26 (36.1%)25 (30.5%)=0.602 ***
Fused Levels
  • Median (IQR)
4 (0)4 (0)4 (2)=0.560 $
C5 Palsy21 (10.1%)3 (4.2%)0 (0%)<0.001 #
* ANOVA test was used to compare the mean difference between groups. ** Post hoc test was used for pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction. *** Chi-square test was used to compare the proportion difference between groups. $ Independent samples Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the median difference between groups. # Monte Carlo exact test was used to compare the proportion difference between groups. IQR, interquartile range; LMS, lateral mass screws; max, maximum; min, minimum; PAP, posterior–anterior–posterior.
Table 2. Cervical lordosis parameters in the studied groups.
Table 2. Cervical lordosis parameters in the studied groups.
PAP LMS (I)
(n = 208)		PAP Pedicle (II)
(n = 72)		Post. Pedicle (III)
(n = 82)		p-Value
Pre-C2 Slope (degrees) =0.002 *
  • Median (IQR)
14.5 (12)17.5 (10)15.5 (12)
p-value **I vs. II = 0.002II vs. III = 0.008I vs. III = 0.789
Pre-T1 Slope (degrees)
  • Median (IQR)
23 (11)17.5 (10)25.5 (10)<0.001 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.001II vs. III < 0.001I vs. III = 0.063
Pre-C2–7 SVA (mm)
  • Median (IQR)
19 (17)21 (9)19.5 (13)=0.809 *
Pre-C2–7 Cobb Angle (degrees)
  • Median (IQR)
7 (14)5.5 (9.5)9 (15)=0.021 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.881II vs. III = 0.029I vs. III = 0.061
Pre-T1-CL (degrees)
  • Median (IQR)
16 (12)14 (19)15 (15)=0.031 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.036II vs. III = 0.921I vs. III = 0.444
Post-C2 Slope (degrees)
  • Median (IQR)
12.5 (12)13 (7)15.5 (9.5)=0.043 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.987II vs. III = 0.454I vs. III = 0.036
* Independent samples Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the median difference between groups. ** Post hoc test was used for pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction. IQR, interquartile range; LMS, lateral mass screws; max, maximum; min, minimum; PAP, posterior–anterior–posterior; SD, standard deviation; SVA, sagittal vertical axis; T1s-CL, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (C2–C7 Cobb angle).
Table 3. Cervical lordosis parameters in the studied groups—continuation.
Table 3. Cervical lordosis parameters in the studied groups—continuation.
PAP LMS (I)
(n = 208)		PAP Pedicle (II)
(n = 72)		Post. Pedicle (III)
(n = 82)		p-Value
Post-T1 Slope (degrees) <0.001 *
  • Median (IQR)
30 (10)24 (10)27 (12)
p-value **I vs. II = 0.001II vs. III = 0.004I vs. III = 0.842
Post-C2–7 SVA (mm)
  • Median (IQR)
23.5 (16)21.5 (9)22 (10)=0.322 *
Post-C2–7 Cobb Angle (degrees)
  • Median (IQR)
18 (13)26 (11)13 (17)<0.001 *
p-value **I vs. II < 0.001II vs. III < 0.001I vs. III = 0.055
Post-T1-CL (degrees)
  • Median (IQR)
13 (11)2 (14)12 (16)<0.001 *
p-value **I vs. II < 0.001II vs. III < 0.001I vs. III = 0.745
Delta C2 (postoperative–preoperative) (degrees)
  • Median (IQR)
−3 (10)−6 (11)0.4 (7.5)<0.001 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.207II vs. III < 0.001I vs. III = 0.003
* Independent samples Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the median difference between groups. ** Post hoc test was used for pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction.
Table 4. NDI, JOA (pre- and postoperative results at 6 months and 1 year) in the studied groups.
Table 4. NDI, JOA (pre- and postoperative results at 6 months and 1 year) in the studied groups.
PAP LMS (I)
(n = 208)		PAP Pedicle (II)
(n = 72)		Post. Pedicle (III)
(n = 82)		p-Value
Preoperative JOA =0.256 *
  • Median (IQR)
12 (7)11 (6)11 (8)
JOA at 6 months post-operation =0.843 ***
  • Mean ± SD
15.0 ± 1.9915.3 ± 1.7015.2 ± 1.45
JOA at 1 year post-operation
  • Mean ± SD
15.5 ± 1.8916.1 ± 1.4816.5 ± 1.12=0.011 ***
p-value **I vs. II = 0.024II vs. III = 0.229I vs. III = 0.008
Preoperative NDI
  • Median (IQR)
20 (17)19 (12)20 (8)=0.047 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.333II vs. III = 0.040I vs. III = 0.489
NDI at 6 months post-operation =0.188 *
  • Median (IQR)
15 (11)14 (13)12 (11)
NDI at 1 year post-operation
  • Median (IQR)
13 (11)12 (5.5)12 (4)=0.046 *
p-value **I vs. II = 0.183II vs. III = 0.928I vs. III = 0.040
* Independent samples Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the median difference between groups. ** Post hoc test was used for pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction. *** ANOVA test was used to compare the mean difference between groups. IQR, interquartile range; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; LMS, lateral mass screws; max, maximum; min, minimum; NDI, Neck Disability Index; PAP, posterior–anterior–posterior; SD, standard deviation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, Y.-H.; Abdou, M.; Kwon, J.-W.; Suk, K.-S.; Moon, S.-H.; Won, Y.-G.; Lee, T.-J.; Lee, B.-H. Posterior Preventive Foraminotomy before Laminectomy Combined with Pedicle Screw Fixation May Decrease the Incidence of C5 Palsy in Complex Cervical Spine Surgery in Patients with Severe Myeloradiculopathy. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2227. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062227

AMA Style

Lee Y-H, Abdou M, Kwon J-W, Suk K-S, Moon S-H, Won Y-G, Lee T-J, Lee B-H. Posterior Preventive Foraminotomy before Laminectomy Combined with Pedicle Screw Fixation May Decrease the Incidence of C5 Palsy in Complex Cervical Spine Surgery in Patients with Severe Myeloradiculopathy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(6):2227. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062227

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Yong-Ho, Mahmoud Abdou, Ji-Won Kwon, Kyung-Soo Suk, Seong-Hwan Moon, You-Gun Won, Tae-Jin Lee, and Byung-Ho Lee. 2023. "Posterior Preventive Foraminotomy before Laminectomy Combined with Pedicle Screw Fixation May Decrease the Incidence of C5 Palsy in Complex Cervical Spine Surgery in Patients with Severe Myeloradiculopathy" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 6: 2227. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062227

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop