Display options
Share it on

J Clin Med Res. 2016 Jul;8(7):506-12. doi: 10.14740/jocmr2572w. Epub 2016 May 29.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Practice Patterns Among Greek Spinal Surgeons.

Journal of clinical medicine research

Savvas L Spanos, Ioannis D Siasios, Vassilios G Dimopoulos, Kostas N Fountas

Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health and Welfare, Central Greece University of Applied Sciences, Lamia, Greece; Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA.
  3. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.

PMID: 27298658 PMCID: PMC4894019 DOI: 10.14740/jocmr2572w

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A web-based survey was conducted among Greek spinal surgeons to outline the current practice trends in regard to the surgical management of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical spine pathology. Various practice patterns exist in the surgical management of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy for degenerative pathology. No consensus exists regarding the type of the employed graft, the necessity of implanting a plate, the prescription of an external orthotic device, and the length of the leave of absence in these patients.

METHODS: A specially designed questionnaire was used for evaluating the criteria for surgical intervention, the frequency of fusion employment, the type of the graft, the frequency of plate implantation, the employment of an external spinal orthosis (ESO), the length of the leave of absence, and the prescription of postoperative physical therapy. Physicians' demographic factors were assessed including residency and spinal fellowship training, as well as type and length in practice.

RESULTS: Eighty responses were received. Neurosurgeons represented 70%, and orthopedic surgeons represented 30%. The majority of the participants (91.3%) considered fusion necessary. Allograft was the preferred type of graft. Neurosurgeons used a plate in 42.9% of cases, whereas orthopedic surgeons in 100%. An ESO was recommended for 87.5% of patients without plates, and in 83.3% of patients with plates. The average duration of ESO usage was 4 weeks. Physical therapy was routinely prescribed postoperatively by 75% of the neurosurgeons, and by 83.3% of the orthopedic surgeons. The majority of the participants recommended 4 weeks leave of absence.

CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of participants considered ACDF a better treatment option than an ACD, and preferred an allograft. The majority of them employed a plate, prescribed an ESO postoperatively, and recommended physical therapy to their patients.

Keywords: Anterior cervical discectomy; External orthosis; Fusion; Graft; Physical therapy

References

  1. J Orthop Traumatol. 2010 Jun;11(2):99-103 - PubMed
  2. Neurosurgery. 1998 Jul;43(1):51-5 - PubMed
  3. Neurosurgery. 1998 Aug;43(2):268-73; discussion 273-4 - PubMed
  4. J Spinal Disord. 2001 Feb;14 (1):3-9 - PubMed
  5. Br J Neurosurg. 1999 Oct;13(5):445-8 - PubMed
  6. Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6):636-43 - PubMed
  7. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Jan;(394):27-38 - PubMed
  8. Injury. 2011 Sep;42 Suppl 2:S3-15 - PubMed
  9. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2007 Jun;30(5):343-50 - PubMed
  10. J Spinal Disord. 1996 Jun;9(3):202-6 - PubMed
  11. Eur Spine J. 2007 Sep;16(9):1411-6 - PubMed
  12. J Spinal Disord. 1999 Dec;12 (6):467-71 - PubMed
  13. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Mar;114(3):488-95 - PubMed
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Jan 15;23 (2):188-92 - PubMed
  15. Br J Neurosurg. 2012 Feb;26(1):12-5 - PubMed
  16. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Jan;28(1):25-32 - PubMed
  17. J Spinal Disord. 1999 Feb;12(1):45-9 - PubMed
  18. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Jun;(339):76-81 - PubMed
  19. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Apr 1;25(7):801-3 - PubMed
  20. Indian J Orthop. 2009 Jul;43(3):240-4 - PubMed
  21. J Neuroimaging. 2007 Oct;17(4):315-22 - PubMed
  22. Eur Spine J. 2013 Jan;22(1):142-7 - PubMed
  23. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Mar 15;38(6):471-5 - PubMed
  24. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Jul;84(7):1043-7 - PubMed
  25. Can J Neurol Sci. 2004 Nov;31(4):478-83 - PubMed
  26. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013 May;29(4):290-300 - PubMed
  27. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 1;30(17):1989-97 - PubMed
  28. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Nov 15;36(24):2045-50 - PubMed
  29. Pain. 2013 Nov;154(11):2388-96 - PubMed
  30. J Spinal Disord. 1996 Dec;9(6):470-6 - PubMed
  31. Mt Sinai J Med. 2000 Sep;67(4):314-7 - PubMed
  32. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Aug 1;30(15):1756-61 - PubMed
  33. Eur Spine J. 2000 Oct;9(5):398-403 - PubMed
  34. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Aug 1;25(15):1908-16 - PubMed
  35. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Mar 15;26(6):643-6; discussion 646-7 - PubMed
  36. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011 Dec;12(4):201-5 - PubMed
  37. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Apr 1;32(7):772-4; discussion 775 - PubMed
  38. Disabil Rehabil. 2004 Jun 17;26(12 ):712-7 - PubMed
  39. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2214-9 - PubMed
  40. Neurosurgery. 2002 Feb;50(2):229-36; discussion 236-8 - PubMed
  41. Surg Neurol. 2009 Jan;71(1):66-9; discussion 69 - PubMed
  42. Br J Neurosurg. 1998 Apr;12 (2):113-7 - PubMed
  43. Man Ther. 2009 Dec;14(6):696-701 - PubMed
  44. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008 Jul;9(1):10-6 - PubMed
  45. J Spinal Disord. 2000 Feb;13(1):1-8 - PubMed
  46. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Mar 1;33(5):458-64 - PubMed
  47. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;117(4):828-37 - PubMed
  48. Eur Spine J. 2009 Feb;18(2):232-7 - PubMed
  49. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 15;38(4):300-7 - PubMed
  50. J Neurosurg. 1999 Jan;90(1 Suppl):8-12 - PubMed

Publication Types