Developing an Individual Neurosurgical Strategy in Patients With a Two-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease

Background: Little is written about substantiated clinical and biometric indications for dynamic stabilization, rigid fixation, and their combinations in patients with two-level degenerative disease of the cervical intervertebral discs (IVD).

Objective: To study the risk factors for poor outcomes of two-segment interventions (total disk arthroplasty, TDA; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, ACDF; and their combination) in patients with two-level degenerative diseases of the cervical IVD; to develop a custom clinical and instrumental assessment strategy for future interventions.

Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes in 118 patients with a two-level degenerative disease of the cervical IVD, who underwent TDA (n = 37), ACDF (n = 41), and their combination (n = 40) from 2005 to 2015. After this analysis, we built a mixed effects logistic regression model to identify and assess the impact of various risk factors on poor clinical outcomes in each intervention.

Results: TDA correlated with favorable outcomes in patients with cervical lordosis over 12 °; I–III grade IVD changes according to Pfirrmann scale; I–II grade facet joints (FJ) changes according to Pathria criteria; no FJ tropism; segmental movements amplitude > 8 °; interbody space height ≤ 6 mm, and with no central spinal stenosis/spine interventions. Favorable ACDF outcomes may be achieved in patients with cervical lordosis ≥ 7 °; more than III grade IVD changes according to Pfirrmann scale; more than II grade changes in FJ according to Pathria criteria; segmental movements amplitude ≤ 8 °; interbody space height < 6 mm. FJ tropism, central spinal stenosis, and history of spine interventions do not affect ACDF outcomes.

Conclusions: An individual approach to TDA, ACDF, and their combination as well as comprehensive preoperative clinical and instrumental assessment in patients with a two-level degenerative IVD disease contribute to the effective resolution of existing neurological symptoms, which reduced the pain severity in the cervical region and upper limbs, improve the patients’ functional status and quality of life in the late postoperative period, and reduce the number of postoperative complications and reinterventions.

1. Byvaltsev VA, Kalinin AA, Hernandez PA, et al. Molecular and genetic mechanisms of spinal stenosis formation: systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(21):13479. PMID: 36362274. PM-CID: PMC9658491. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232113479

2. Zekaj E, Saleh C, Franzini A, Ciuffi A, Servello D. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy with ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: which is the most suitable surgical procedure? A technical note. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2020;5(1):41–45. PMID: 33575494. PMCID: PMC7870323. https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2019-0107

3. Byvaltsev VA, Kalinin AA, Aliyev MA, Azhibekov NO, Shepelev VV, Riew KD. Poor fusion rates following cervical corpectomy reconstructed with an expandable cage: minimum 2-year radiographic and clinical outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2021;89(4):617–625. PMID: 34270755. PMCID: PMC8440060. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyab240

4. Klimov VS, Kelmakov VV, Clyde BL, et al. Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of anterior uncoforaminotomy for unilateral single-level cervical radiculopathy: retrospective cohort study. Spine J. 2021;21(6):915–923. PMID: 33545373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.024

5. Schuermans VNE, Smeets AYJM, Wijsen NPMH, Curfs I, Boselie TFM, van Santbrink H. Clinical adjacent segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy, with and without fusion, for cervical degenerative disc disease: a single center retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Brain Spine. 2022;2:100869. PMID: 36248168. PMCID: PMC9560678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.100869

6. Byvaltsev VA, Kalinin AA, Belykh EG, et al. An algorithmic posterior approach to the treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical spine disease: a multicenter prospective study. Int J Spine Surg. 2022;16(5):890–898. PMID: 36302608. https://doi.org/10.14444/8341

7. Gatam AR, Gatam L, Phedy, et al. Full endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy in management of foraminal disc herniation and foraminal stenosis. Orthop Res Rev. 2022;14:1–7. PMID: 35125894. PMCID: PMC8812322. https://doi.org/10.2147/orr.s349701

8. Piazza M, McShane BJ, Ramayya AG, et al. Posterior cervical laminectomy results in better radiographic decompression of spinal cord compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. World Neurosurg. 2018;110:e362–e366. PMID: 29138070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.11.017

9. Hollyer MA, Gill EC, Ayis S, Demetriades AK. The safety and efficacy of hybrid surgery for multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020;162(2):289–303. PMID: 31848789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-04129-3

10. Liu B, Zeng Z, Hoof TV, Kalala JP, Liu Z, Wu B. Comparison of hybrid constructs with 2-level artificial disc replacement and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for surgical reconstruction of the cervical spine: a kinematic study in whole cadavers. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:1031–1037. PMID: 25853772. PMCID: PMC4403376. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.892712

11. Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, et al. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(1):15–25. PMID: 25380538. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.spine13953

12. Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(17):1873–1878. PMID: 11568697. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011

13. Pathria M, Sartoris DJ, Resnick D. Osteoarthritis of the facet joints: accuracy of oblique radiographic assessment. Radiology. 1987;164(1):227–230. PMID: 3588910. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.164.1.3588910

14. Sundseth J, Fredriksli OA, Kolstad F, et al. The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1225–1235. PMID: 28012081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4922-5

15. Wu TK, Wang BY, Deng MD, et al. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion combined with cervical disc arthroplasty and cervical disc arthroplasty for the treatment of skiplevel cervical degenerative disc disease: A retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(41):e8112. PMID: 29019878. PMCID: PMC5662301. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000008112

16. Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, et al. Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© cervical disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with sevenyear follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11(4):31. PMID: 29372135. PMCID: PMC5779239. https://doi.org/10.14444/4031

17. Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion: results at 48 months follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(4):E237–E243. PMID: 25310394. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000185

18. Lee NJ, Joaquim AF, Boddapati V, et al. Revision anterior cervical disc arthroplasty: a national analysis of the associated indications, procedures, and postoperative outcomes. Global Spine J. 2022;12(7):1338–1344. PMID: 33464126. PMCID: PMC9393989. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220979140

19. Yin S, Yu X, Zhou S, Yin Z, Qiu Y. Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(6):1904–1919. PMID: 23389804. PMCID: PMC3706664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2830-0

20. Laratta JL, Shillingford JN, Saifi C, Riew KD. Cervical disc arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of single-level, multilevel, and hybrid procedures. Global Spine J. 2018;8(1):78–83. PMID: 29456918. PMCID: PMC5810892. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217701095

21. Yang Y, Ma L, Liu H, et al. Comparison of the incidence of patient-reported post-operative dysphagia between ACDF with a traditional anterior plate and artificial cervical disc replacement. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;148:72–78. PMID: 27428486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.07.020

22. Goldstein ZH, Boody B, Sasso R. Two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty-long-term evidence update. Int J Spine Surg. 2020;14(s2):S36–S40. PMID: 32994304. PMCID: PMC7528774. https://doi.org/10.14444/7089

23. Mao N, Wu J, Zhang Y, et al. A comparison of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion combined with artificial disc replacement and cage fusion in patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(16):1277–1283. PMID: 25929206. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000957

24. Schuermans VNE, Smeets AYJM, Boselie AFM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression surgery for cervical degenerative disk disease: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(5):1206–1218. PMID: 35224672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07137-7