treatment of cervical stenosis: update and controversies · and fusion (acdf) • high success rate...
TRANSCRIPT
1/28/2020
1
Treatment of Cervical Stenosis: Update and Controversies
Nitin N. Bhatia, M.D.Chief, Spine Service
Professor & ChairmanDept of Orthopedic Surgery
University of California, Irvine
Disclosures
• I have a potential conflict with this presentation due to:
– Consulting/Royalty/Speaker’s Bureau payments for unrelated products from: Alphatec, Biomet, DiFusion, Orthofix, Seaspine, Spineart, Stryker
1
2
1/28/2020
2
Cervical Spondylosis
• Cervical spondylosis is a general term encompassing a number of degenerative conditions– Degenerative disc disease (DDD)
– Spinal stenosis
– Facet joint degeneration
– The formation of osteophytes (bone spurs)
– Herniated, bulging, or protruding discs
• Frequently see several of these together
• Overall, the most frequent reason for cervical spinal surgery
Degenerative Disc Disease
• Begins in the annulus fibrosis with changes to the structure and chemistry of the concentric layers
• Loss of water content and proteoglycans, which changes the disc’s mechanical properties
Degenerative Normal
3
4
1/28/2020
3
Degenerative Disease: Facet Joints
• Changes in the disc can lead to changes in the articular facets, especially hypertrophy(overgrowth) with narrowing of the adjacent neural foramen
Degenerative Disease: Osteophytes
• There also may be hypertrophy of the vertebral bodies adjacent to the degenerating disc; these bony overgrowths are known as osteophytes (or bone spurs)
5
6
1/28/2020
4
Herniated Nucleus Pulposus
• The progressive degeneration of a disc, or traumatic event, can lead to a failure of the annulus to adequately contain the nucleus pulposus
• This is known as herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) or a herniated disc
Herniated Nucleus Pulposus
• Diagnosis via history, exam, and imaging
– 30 – 40 y/o patients
– MRI scan
– Sudden onset
• Progressive neurologic deficit may require urgent surgical decompression
• Many are asymptomatic
7
8
1/28/2020
5
Spinal Stenosis (Canal Narrowing)
• Grouped as “spinal stenosis”– Central stenosis
• Narrowing of the central part of the spinal canal
– Foraminal stenosis
• Narrowing of the foramen resulting in pressure on the exiting nerve root
T2- and T1-weighted sagittals at midspine showing spinal canal stenosis from C4/C5/C6 level
9
10
1/28/2020
6
StenoticNormal
Cervical Spinal Stenosis: Symptoms
• Neck and arm discomfort, numbness, weakness, heaviness, fatigue– Frequently not true “pain”
• Difficulty using hands
• Decreased balance
• “Myelopathy”
11
12
1/28/2020
7
Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
• Most common type of spinal cord dysfunction in patients older than 55 years
• Onset is usually insidious, with long periods of fixed disability and episodic worsening
• The first signs are commonly gait problems, upper-extremity numbness, or loss of fine motor control in the hands
Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy• Unlike most degenerative
conditions of the spine, conservative treatment is not indicated
• Performing surgery relatively early (within 1 year of symptom onset) is associated with a substantial improvement in neurologic prognosis
• Delay in surgical treatment can result in permanent impairment
13
14
1/28/2020
8
Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
• Surgical care
– Anterior or posterior surgery
– Dependent upon the anatomy and the lordosis of the affected segments, and surgeon preference
• Posterior cervical fusion
• Laminoplasty
• Anterior cervical decompression and fusion
Cervical Spondylosis Without Myelopathy
• Surgical care
– For radicular/neurologic symptoms
– Not for axial neck pain
– Dependent on the anatomy and the lordosis of the affected segments, and surgeon preference
• Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
• Anterior cervical corpectomy (multiple levels)
• In some cases, adjunct posterior-instrumented fusion
15
16
1/28/2020
9
Cervical Stenosis: Surgical Option
Anterior Dec / Fusion
Laminectomy
Laminectomy / Fusion
Laminoplasty
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF)
• High success rate > 90%
– Disc removal/decompression
– Use of microscope
– Bone graft or other material for fusion
– Why consider another option?
17
18
1/28/2020
10
Are There Consequences to Spinal Fusion?
• Adjacent Segment Disease
• Pseudarthrosis
• Instrumentation Failure
• Loss of motion
Consequences of Spinal Fusion
• Adjacent segment degeneration
– Radiographic changes
– Level(s) adjacent(?) to fusion
– Often asymptomatic
– Not adjacent segment disease
19
20
1/28/2020
11
Consequences of Spine Fusion
• Adjacent level ossification disease
– Radiographic changes
– Related to plate impingement
– Also not = Adjacent Segment Disease
– Park et al. JBJS 2005
Consequences of Spine Fusion
• Adjacent segment disease
– Development of new symptoms
– Corresponding radiographic changes
– Adjacent to prior fusion
– Symptoms
– Require surgical treatment
21
22
1/28/2020
12
“The Controversy”
Natural History
of the Underlying
Disease (Spondylosis)
Consequence
of the
Surgery (Fusion)
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• 8.5 yr F/U of 106 pts 25% stenosis (Baba et
al.)
• 5 yr F/U of 121 pts (Gore and Sepic)
– 25% new spondylosis
– 25% pre-existing spondylosis
Radiographic Studies - DegenerationRadiographic Studies - Degeneration
23
24
1/28/2020
13
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• 4.5 yr F/U of 44 pts (Herkowitz et al.)
• ACDF vs. posterior foraminotomy
– ACDF 41% adjacent segment degeneration
– foraminotomy 50% adjacent level degeneration
Comparative Radiographic StudiesComparative Radiographic Studies
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• 5 to 17 year follow-up (X rays) (Villas et al.)
– operated (50 patients)
– unoperated (100 patients)
• Comparison operated vs unoperated
– Operated = 32% new, 51% progression (5-17 yrs)
– Nonoperated = 36% (> 5 yrs) to 83% (> 15 yrs)
Radiographic Studies – CSRS 2005Radiographic Studies – CSRS 2005
25
26
1/28/2020
14
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
Study # Pts F/U(yrs)Prevalence
*Incidence*
Bohlman 122 6 9% 1.5%
Gore and Sepic
133 5 14% 3%
Williams 60 4.5 17% 4.5%
Clinical Follow-Up Studies (ACDF)Clinical Follow-Up Studies (ACDF)
*Approximately 3% per year*Approximately 3% per year
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• Prevalence with longer F/U
– similar to natural history
– disc arthroplasty needs long-term F/U
– ACDF also needs better long-term F/U
Clinical Follow-Up StudiesClinical Follow-Up Studies
27
28
1/28/2020
15
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• < 3 yr F/U of 334 pts (ACD F) (Lunsford et al.)
– 22 pts with adjacent segment disease
– prevalence = 6.7%
– annual incidence ~ 3%
• No difference: ACD vs ACDF
Non-Fusion: Clinical Follow-UpNon-Fusion: Clinical Follow-Up
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• 2.8 yr F/U of 846 pts (Henderson et al.)
• Posterior foraminotomy
• No fusions
– 79 pts adjacent segment disease
– prevalence = 9%
– annual incidence ~ 3%
Non-Fusion: Clinical Follow-UpNon-Fusion: Clinical Follow-Up
29
30
1/28/2020
16
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• Similar results to ACDF
• Annual incidence ~ 3%
• New disease at adjacent segments
• Is it the fusion surgery?
• Is it the natural history of cervical spondylosis?
Non-Fusion: Clinical Follow-UpNon-Fusion: Clinical Follow-Up
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• 374 patients undergoing ACF
• 409 procedures (radic or myelopathy)
• 2 – 21 yr F/U
– prevalence and annual incidence
– predictions with survivorship analysis
– risk factors for adjacent segment disease
Hilibrand et al., JBJS (Am), 1999Hilibrand et al., JBJS (Am), 1999
31
32
1/28/2020
17
Incidence / Etiology of ASD
• Annual incidence ~ 3%
• Overall prevalence ~ 14%
• Survivorship analysis
– 13.6% @ 5 years
– 25.6% @ 10 years
Hilibrand et al., JBJS (Am), 1999Hilibrand et al., JBJS (Am), 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year of Follow Up
% D
isea
se -
Fre
e
Figure 2: Kaplan Meier Survivorship
Wang et al. Nass 2000
• UCLA Dept. of Orthopaedics Surgery Spine Service
• Enrollment 1990-1997
• 205 patients having Robinson ACDF for the treatment of degenerative disease
• 15 patients had surgery for subsequent cervical degeneration.
• All of these patients had an adjacent level fused superior or inferior to their previous fusion
33
34
1/28/2020
18
Survivorship Analysis
• Year Survivivorship Incidence of New Disease
• 1 98.9 1.1
• 2 96.1 2.8
• 3 95.4 0.7
• 4 92.6 2.8
• 5 85.6 7.0
• 6 82.1 3.5
• At 6 years, a projected estimate or 17.9% of patients needed a surgery for cervical degeneration, about 3% a year.
Adjacent Segment Disease
• 2.9% per year
– Hilibrand, Bohlman JBJS 1999
• 3.0% per year
– Wang NASS 2000
• 3.0% per year without fusion
• Evidence that it does exist
• Not increased by prior fusion
35
36
1/28/2020
19
Adjacent Segment Disease After Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Long-term Follow-up and Survivorship
AnalysisGary Ghiselli, MD
Jeffrey C Wang, MDNitin N Bhatia, MD
Wellington K Hsu, MDEdgar G Dawson, MD
UCLA Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryLos Angeles, California
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2004
Results• Three fusion levels
analyzed
– Thoracolumbar
• Fused from thoracic to lumbar spine (scoliosis)
– Floating
• Not fused to sacrum or thoracic spine
– Lumbosacral
• Fused to sacrum
37
38
1/28/2020
20
Re-operation Analysis
• Overall, 37% of patients will need another procedure at an adjacent segment in 10 years
• 3.7% per year
Gary Ghiselli, MD
Jeffrey C. Wang, MD
Wellington K. Hsu, MD
Edgar G. Dawson, MD
UCLA Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
UCLA School of Medicine
Los Angeles, CA
Spine 2003
Subsequent L5-S1 Disc Degeneration After L4-L5 Isolated Lumbar Fusion: Long-term
Survivorship Analysis
39
40
1/28/2020
21
Introduction
• There is current controversy regarding future degeneration of the L5-S1 segment following adjacent segment fusion at the L4-L5 level.
• There are no long-term studies which specifically look at the L5-S1 level after L4-L5 fusion to assess the rate of degeneration at this adjacent segment.
Results
• 31 (97%) had no evidence of symptomatic degeneration at the L5-S1 level requiring additional decompression or fusion
• One patient had clinical symptoms that required a foraminotomy and laminotomy at the L5-S1 level 7.9 years after fusion (3%)
41
42
1/28/2020
22
Adjacent Segment Disease
• Lumbar Spine
• Ghiselli, Bhatia et al. JBJS 2004– 16.5% at 5 years
– 36.1% at 10 years
• Nakai et al. Eur Spine J 1996– 31% developed adjacent
segment degeneration
– Felt to be natural progression of disease
Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar TDA
• Zeegers et al. Eur Spine J 1999
• 2 year f/u
• 17/50 patients had additional surgery
• 11 for adjacent level disease
• Incidence 22%
• Higher than for fusion
• Variables?
43
44
1/28/2020
23
Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar TDA
• Bertagnoli et al. Eur Spine J 2002
• 108 patients
• Adjacent segment disease progression noted in 10 patients
• Incidence 9.3%
Adjacent Segment Disease
• Stoll et al. Eur Spine J 2002
• Dynesys “mobile stabilization”
• Not disc arthroplasty
• Mean f/u of 38.1 months
• 7/83 had further surgery for adjacent segment disease
• Incidence 8.5%
45
46
1/28/2020
24
Adjacent Segment Disease
• Does disc arthroplasty decrease adjacent segment disease?
• Maybe
• Some motion preservation devices show increased adjacent segment degeneration
• Need long-term follow-up
Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar TDA
• Huang et al.– Range of motion and adjacent level
degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement Spine J. 2006
– 8.7 year follow-up
– 70% had 1.6 degrees of motion
– 30% had 4.7 degrees• 34% of 1.6 degrees had ASD
• 0% of 4.7 degrees had ASD
47
48
1/28/2020
25
Adjacent Segment Disease• Huang et al.
– Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement Spine J. 2006
– 8.7 year follow-up
– 70% had 1.6 degrees of motion
– 30% had 4.7 degrees• 34% of 1.6 degrees had ASD
• 0% of 4.7 degrees had ASD
Total number of pts with ASD/Total number pt over 9 year followup
3% per year
Adjacent Segment Disease
The Controversy Continues!
Fusion
Disease
Fusion
Disease
Patient
Disease
Patient
Disease
49
50
1/28/2020
26
Only a Direct Comparison of Patients Randomized to
Arthroplasty Versus ACDF in the Same RCT Will Give Us the
Real Answer
ACDF vs Arthroplasty
• Arthroplasty
– Randomized control trials (RCT)
– Used to justify the technique
– Proponents will cite the data
– Problems with the data
51
52
1/28/2020
27
Problem #1 with Arthroplasty RCT
• Treatment Effect– The tendency for patients to be more
enthusiastic about getting the “device”instead of the “control”
• All patients offered enrollment in RCT
• Some just want the ACDF
• Other want the device– Selection for those who want the device
– Must enroll in trial
– ½ unhappy because they get ACDF
Problem #1 with Arthroplasty RCT
• Treatment Effect
• May explain higher VAS scores for ACDF
• May explain lower SF-36 scores for ACDF
• Statistically significant differences
• Clinically meaningless differences
53
54
1/28/2020
28
Problem #2 with Arthroplasty RCT
• Confirmation Bias– The tendency of people to seek confirming
evidence of their own hypotheses
• Surgeons enthusiastic about arthroplasty
• Surgeons evaluate their own ACDF
• Surgeons who decide if surgery needed for ASD
• Surgeon bias?
Problem #2 with Arthroplasty RCT
• Confirmation Bias
• CSRS 2007 Prestige RCT Paper #3
• Comparison of re-operations after ACDF and Cervical Arthroplasty– 2 year reoperation rate for
cervical arthroplasty = 3.1 %
– 2 year reoperation rate for ACDF in this RCT trial = 12.1%
– 4.3% re-operation at the same level?
• Does that seem high?
55
56
1/28/2020
29
Problem #2 with Arthroplasty
RCT
• Confirmation Bias
• CSRS 2007 Paper #4 (Phillips)
– single level ACDF in clinical practice
– 2 yr reop rate = 3.1%
– 2 yr reop Prestige ACDF = 12.1%
• High rate of surgery for ASD after ACDF
– operate adjacent to ACDF = everyday
– how about operating adjacent to this?
Problem #2 with Arthroplasty RCT
• Confirmation Bias
• Earlier return to work after arthroplasty
• Important factor in value of arthroplasty
– Why different in ACDF patients?
– At the discretion of surgeons = 2 weeks earlier
• Completely subjective decision
57
58
1/28/2020
30
Problem #3 with Arthroplasty RCT
• Industry funded
• Each company wants to make their device look better
• Their job is to sell and position their product
• Statistics and graphs
• Surgeons who educate – we are the ones that are conflicted
Problem #3 with Arthroplasty RCT
• Anderson et al. CSRS 2005 (Medtronic Data)– RCT Bryan + Prestige (USA + Europe)
– Included 60 patients from cage study
• Incidence of re-operation– Higher with ACF
• Adjacent Segment Disease– 0.8% (CDA) vs 2.6% (ACF) (p<0.05)
– But, exclude cage pts (1.5%) (NS)
– Mean F/U 16 mos: 7/62 reop for ASD
59
60
1/28/2020
31
CSRS 2007
• Paper #2 - How about this table?????
What is the Answer?
• 15 years of data looking at ASD, Outcomes, Complications
• 943 papers in PubMed evaluating “Cervical Disc Arthroplasty”
61
62
1/28/2020
32
Adjacent Segment Disease
• Some papers show decreased ASD after cTDA vs ACDF
– Others show no difference
• Meta-analysis of high quality prospective studies shows no difference in ASD
• ASD highly influenced by non-implant factors
– Ages, Lordosis, Plate length
Verma, et al 2013
Revision Surgery
• Studies inconsistent about revision rates of cTDA vs ACDF
• cTDA revision may take longer, be more expensive, and have higher superficial infection rate
63
64
1/28/2020
33
Heterotopic Ossification
• Rates up to 13% in IDE studies of Grade 4 HO– Bridging bone across the
disc space with functional fusion
– Some studies suggest these patients do better an other cTDA patients
– Cause is unknown• Pre-op uncovertebral
hypertrophy may be related
Functional Outcomes
• Many studies designed for product approval
– Non-inferiority
– Most likely ACDF and cTDA have similar clinical outcomes
65
66
1/28/2020
34
Conclusions
• Cervical arthroplastyprovides another possible solution
• As with all surgery, patient selection is key
• Long term outcomes and complications are unknown
Thank You!
Let’s Shoot for the Stars
67
68