Predictive factors of postoperative outcome after cervical spine surgery at the Soavinandriana Hospital Center, Madagascar: a retrospective analytical study

Patrick S. Rakotozanany; Ndalana A. Masina; Mijoro Ramarokoto; Willy Ratovondrainy

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20261844

Authors

Patrick S. Rakotozanany Department of Neurosurgery, Soavinandriana Hospital Center (CENHOSOA), Antananarivo, Madagascar
Ndalana A. Masina Department of Neurosurgery, Soavinandriana Hospital Center (CENHOSOA), Antananarivo, Madagascar
Mijoro Ramarokoto Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Center Anosiala, Antananarivo, Madagascar
Willy Ratovondrainy Department of Neurosurgery, Soavinandriana Hospital Center (CENHOSOA), Antananarivo, Madagascar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20261844

Keywords:

Anterior approach, Cervical myelopathy, Cervical spine surgery, Posterior approach, Postoperative complications

Abstract

Background: Cervical spinal disorders represent a major cause of neurological morbidity. The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors of postoperative outcome after cervical spine surgery at the Soavinandriana Hospital Center.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analytical study in the Neurosurgery Department of CENHOSOA from January 1^st, 2020 to December 31^st, 2023. Patients operated on for cervical spine disorders during this period were included. Epidemiological, clinical, paraclinical, operative, and outcome parameters were analyzed. A comparative analysis according to the surgical approach was performed.

Results: Fifty-seven patients were included among 864 hospitalized patients. The mean age was 48 years (±14.93), with a balanced sex distribution. The anterior approach accounted for 78.94% (n=45) of surgical procedures. The main surgical indications were cervical myelopathy in 40.35% (n=23) and traumatic cervical lesions in 31.57% (n=18). Postoperative clinical improvement was observed in 78.94% (n=45) of cases. Postoperative complications and infections were significantly more frequent after posterior approach surgery (p=0.026). The anterior approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (OR=19.9; p=0.027). Cervical fractures and dislocations were independent factors associated with intensive care unit admission.

Conclusions: Cervical spine surgery provides satisfactory clinical improvement with low postoperative mortality. The anterior approach was associated with shorter hospital stay and fewer postoperative infectious complications.

References

Fehlings MG, Nater A, Tetreault L, Wilson JR, Harrop JS, Mroz T, et al. Survival and clinical outcomes in surgically treated patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine. 2016;41(Suppl 20):S216-23.

Bajamal AH, Kim SH, Arifianto MR, Faris M, Subagio EA, Roitberg B, et al. Posterior surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Korean J Spine. 2019;16(3):215-24.

Arnold P, Banco RJ, Barry S, Vaccaro AR, Fehlings MG, Fisher C, et al. Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study. Spine. 2013;38(26):2247-52.

Choi D, Crockard A, Bunger C, Harms J, Kawahara N, Mazel C, et al. Review of cervical spine surgery and indications for surgical approach. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(2):215-22.

Aleid A, Almutairi S, Alharbi H, Alqahtani A, Almutairi A, Alshammari A, et al. Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for cervical myelopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis. N Am Spine Soc J. 2024;21:100320.

Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG, Arnold P, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics and pathogenesis. Spine. 2015;40(12):E675-93.

Connelly TM, Kolcun JPG, Madhavan K, Wang MY, Levi AD, Dailey AT, et al. Challenges in cervical spine surgery in low-resource settings. World Neurosurg. 2020;138:345-52.

Tetreault L, Goldstein CL, Arnold P, Harrop J, Hilibrand A, Nouri A, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: a spectrum of related disorders affecting the aging spine. Neurosurg. 2015;77(Suppl 4):S51-67.

Kanna RM, Shetty AP, Rajasekaran S. Epidemiology of cervical spine injuries. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(2):237-45.

Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Brodke DS. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S173-82.

Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, et al. Trends and complications of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2009;34(9):955-63.

Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG, Arnold PM, et al. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S21-S36.

Joaquim AF, Patel AA. Cervical spine trauma: evaluation and surgical decision-making. Global Spine J. 2014;4(1):63-70.

Rhee JM, Yoon T, Riew KD. Cervical radiculopathy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(8):486-94.

Badhiwala JH, Wilson JR, Fehlings MG. Global cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural history, pathophysiology, and management strategies. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018;29(1):91-100.

Daffner RH, Weissman BN, Wippold FJ, Bennett DL, Cornelius RS, De La Paz RL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria cervical neck pain. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(5):S57-76.

Tracy JA, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurologist. 2010;16(3):176-87.

Shamji MF, Maziak DE, Shamji FM, Ginsberg RJ, Cooper JD, Sundaresan SR, et al. Impact of surgical approach on complications and outcomes in cervical spine surgery. Spine. 2013;38(26 Suppl):S183-92.

Kato S, Oshima Y, Oka H, Chikuda H, Takeshita K, Miyoshi K, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(1):101-8.

Veeravagu A, Cole T, Jiang B, Ratliff JK, Cheng I, Alamin T, et al. Revision rates and complication incidence in cervical spine surgery. Spine. 2014;39(26):2200-7.

Alvin MD, Lubelski D, Ahmad H, Nowacki AS, Whitmore RG, Benzel EC, et al. Cervical degenerative disease: anterior versus posterior approach. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E9.

Aarabi B, Sansur CA, Ibrahimi DM, Simard JM, Hersh DS, Le E, et al. Intramedullary lesion length predicts neurological outcome in cervical spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(1):151-63.

Katsuura Y, Osborn JM, Cason GW. The epidemiology of cervical spine fractures. Global Spine J. 2016;6(1):58-68.

Badhiwala JH, Wilson JR, Fehlings MG. Global burden of cervical spinal cord injury and advances in management. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(3):296-306.