Early and Midterm Outcomes of Surgical Correction for Severe Dystrophic Cervical Kyphosis in Patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of surgical correction for severe dystrophic cervical kyphosis in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) and analyze the pathomechanics and the influence on surgical efficacy of related systemic skeletal dystrophy. METHODS: Ten patients who underwent surgical correction for NF-1-related severe dystrophic cervical kyphosis were reviewed. Radiographic parameters, including local and global Cobb angle, sagittal vertical axis, and T-1 slope, were measured. The visual analog scale score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Neck Disability Index, Patient Satisfaction Index, and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: The average follow-up was 50.6 months. The local and global Cobb angle improved from the preoperative average of 82.0° and 54.9° to an average of 35.6° and 29.8°, respectively, at the time of final follow-up. The C2-7 sagittal vertical axis averaged 5.8 mm before surgery and 8.9 mm at the final follow-up. The average T1 slope was -12.3° before surgery and -1.6° at the final follow-up. The visual analog scale score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and Neck Disability Index improved significantly, and the overall satisfaction rate was 90.0%. One death and 4 instrumentation failures occurred, 3 patients showed progression of the kyphosis, and 2 fusion failures were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical correction, specifically the combined anteroposterior procedure, is essential and effective for management of NF-1-related severe dystrophic cervical kyphosis. However, high incidences of instrumentation failure, kyphosis progression, and fusion failure were observed. NF-1-related continuous skeletal dystrophy caused by multiple metabolic factors remarkably affected the midterm outcomes. Early prevention and targeted pharmacotherapy may be necessary.

The short-term efficacy and safety of artificial total disc replacement for selected patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) with the efficacy and safety of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD). METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for the period from the establishment of the databases to March 2018. The peer-reviewed articles that investigate the safety and efficacy of TDR and ALIF were retrieved under the given search terms. Quality assessment must be done independently by two authors according to each item of criterion. The statistical analyses were performed using RevMan (version 5.3) and Stata (version 14.0). The random-effect model was carried out to pool the data. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the robustness of the results of meta-analyses by omitting the articles one by one. RESULTS: Six studies (5 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 1 observational study) involving 1093 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of bias of the studies could be considered as low to moderate. Operative time (MD = 4.95; 95% CI -18.91-28.81; P = 0.68), intraoperative blood loss (MD = 4.95; 95% CI -18.91-28.81; P = 0.68), hospital stay (MD = -0.33; 95% CI, -0.67-0.01; P = 0.05), complications (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-1.02; P = 0.18) and re-operation rate (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.14-2.12; P = 0.38) were without significant clinical difference between groups. Patients in the TDR group had higher postoperative satisfaction (RR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.07-1.32; P = 0.001) and, better improvements in ODI (MD = -10.99; 95% CI -21.50- -0.48; P = 0.04), VAS (MD = -10.56; 95% CI -19.99- -1.13; P = 0.03) and postoperative lumbar mobility than did patients in the ALIF group. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that TDR has significant superiority in term of reduced clinical symptoms, improved physical function and preserved range of motion for the treatment of LDDD compared to ALIF. TDR may be an ideal alternative for the selected patients with LDDD in the short-term. However, the results of this study cannot suggest the use of TDR instead of ALIF in lumbar spine treatment only in the light of short term results. More studies that are well-designed, that are of high-quality and that have larger samples are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of TDR with at the long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level 3.