Outcome of Anterior Fusion Technique for Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

  • Muhammad Hassan Raza Punjab Institute Of Neurosciences Lahore
  • Nabeel Chaudhary
  • Muhammad Akmal
  • Adeeb -UL-Hassan Punjab Institute of Neurosciences (PINS), Lahore General Hospital, Lahore
  • khalid Mahmood
Keywords: Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy, Neck Injury Scale, Cervical Movement range


Objective:   To asses’ surgical parameters, complications, clinical and radiological outcomes in the treatment of 2-, 3- and 4-levels Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy .

Methods: A total of 90 patients with 2-, 3- or 4-level CSM who underwent anterior decompression and fusion procedures between January 2017 and October 2018 were divided into three different groups, the 2-level group (65 patients), the 3-level group (20 patients) and the 4-level group (5 patients). The clinical and Radiographic outcomes like Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, hospital stay, blood loss, operation time, fusion rate, cervical lordosis, cervical range of motion (ROM), and complications were compared between different procedures.

Results: At a minimum of 1-year follow-up, no statistical differences in NDI score, hospital stay, fusion rate and cervical lordosis were found among the 3 groups. However, the mean postoperative NDI score of the 4-level group was significantly higher than that in the other two groups , and in terms of postoperative total ROM, the 3- level group was superior to the 4-level group and inferior to 2-level group (P,0.05). The decrease rate of ROM in the 3-level group was significantly higher than that in the 2-level group, and lower than that in the 4-level group.

Conclusions: As the number of involved levels increased, surgical results become worse in terms of operative time, blood loss, NDI score, cervical ROM and complication rates postoperatively. An appropriate surgical procedure for multilevel CSM should be chosen according to comprehensive clinical evaluation before operation, thus reducing fusion and decompression levels if possible.


1. Reitman CA, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Esses SI. Changes in segmental intervertebral motion adjacent to cervical arthrodesis: a prospective study. Spine, 2004; 29 (11): E221–E226.
2. Konya D, Ozgen S, Gercek A, Pamir MN. Outcomes for combined anterior and posterior surgical approaches for patients with multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci. 2009; 16: 404–409.
3. Jiang JL, Li XL, Zhou XG, Lin H, Dong J. Plate-only open-door laminoplasty with fusion for treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2012; 19 (6): 804–809.
4. Manzano GR, Casella G, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD. A prospective, randomized trial comparing expansile cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery, 2012; 70 (2): 264–277.
5. Lin Q, Zhou X, Wang X, Cao P, Tsai N, et al. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and corpectomy in patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21 (3): 474–481.
6. Herkowitz HN. A comparison of anterior cervical fusion, cervical laminectomy, and cervical laminoplasty for the surgical management of multiple level spondylotic radiculopathy. Spine, 1988; 13 (7): 774–780.
7. Yonenobu K, Hosono N, Iwasaki M, Asano M, Ono K. Laminoplasty versus subtotal corpectomy. A comparative study of results in multisegmental cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine, 1992; 17 (11): 1281–1284.
8. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Ishii T, Yoshikawa H. C5 palsy after decompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine, 2003; 28 (21): 2447–2451.
9. Lebl DR, Hughes A, Cammisa FP Jr, O’Leary PF. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. HSS J. 2011; 7 (2): 170–178.
10. Liu T, Xu W, Cheng T, Yang HL. Anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevel cervical myelopathy, which one is better? A systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 (2): 224–235.
11. Sevki K, Mehmet T, Ufuk T, Azmi H, Mercan S, et al. Results of surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior cervical corpectomy and stabilization. Spine, 2004; 29 (22): 2493–2500.
12. Liu Y, Yu KY, Hu JH. Hybrid decompression technique and two-level corpectomy are effective treatments for three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2009; 10 (9): 696–701.
13. Chang SW, Kakarla UK, Maughan PH, DeSanto J, Fox D, et al () Fourlevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation: radiographic and clinical results. Neurosurgery, 2010; 66 (4): 639–646.
14. Liu Y, Hou Y, Yang L. Comparison of 3 reconstructive techniques in the surgical management of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine, 2012; 37 (23): e1450–e1458.
15. Shunzhi Y, Zhonghai L, Fengning L, Zhi C, Tiesheng H. Surgical Management of 4-level Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Orthopedics, 2013; 36 (5): e613–e620.
16. Park Y, Maeda T, Cho W, Riew KD. Comparison of anterior cervical fusion after two-level discectomy or single-level corpectomy: sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, graft collapse, and adjacent-level ossification. Spine J. 2010; 10 (3): 193–199.
17. Oh MC, Zhang HY, Park JY, Kim KS. Two-level anterior cervical discectomy versus one-level corpectomy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine, 2009; 34 (7): 692–696.
18. Guo Q, Bi X, Ni B, Lu X, Chen J, et al. Outcomes of three anterior decompression and fusion techniques in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylosis. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 (9): 1539–1544.
19. Stewart TJ, Schlenk RP, Benzel EC. Multiple level discectomy and fusion. Neurosurgery, 2007; 60 (1):S143–S148.
20. Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT. Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine, 1999; 24 (15): 1604–1610.
21. Penning L. Normal movements of the cervical spine.Am J Roentogenol. 1978; 130 (2): 317–326.
22. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine, 2000; 25 (20): 2646–2654.
Original Article