Next Article in Journal
Prognostic Value of Resistance Proteins in Plasma Cells from Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated with Bortezomib-Based Regimens
Previous Article in Journal
Synovial Fluid Cytokines, Chemokines and MMP Levels in Osteoarthritis Patients with Knee Pain Display a Profile Similar to Many Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients
 
 
jcm-logo
Article Menu

Article Menu

Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Significantly Associated with Postoperative Neck Pain Deterioration after Surgery for Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Study of a Cohort Using a Prospective Registry

by
Masao Koda
1,*,†,
Toshitaka Yoshii
2,†,
Satoru Egawa
2,†,
Kenichiro Sakai
3,†,
Kazuo Kusano
4,†,
Yukihiro Nakagawa
5,†,
Takashi Hirai
2,†,
Kanichiro Wada
6,†,
Keiichi Katsumi
7,†,
Atsushi Kimura
8,†,
Takeo Furuya
9,†,
Satoshi Maki
9,†,
Narihito Nagoshi
10,†,
Kota Watanabe
10,†,
Tsukasa Kanchiku
11,†,
Yukitaka Nagamoto
12,†,
Yasushi Oshima
13,†,
Kei Ando
14,†,
Hiroaki Nakashima
14,†,
Masahiko Takahata
15,†,
Kanji Mori
16,†,
Hideaki Nakajima
17,†,
Kazuma Murata
18,†,
Shunji Matsunaga
19,†,
Takashi Kaito
20,†,
Kei Yamada
21,†,
Sho Kobayashi
22,†,
Satoshi Kato
23,†,
Tetsuro Ohba
24,†,
Satoshi Inami
25,†,
Shunsuke Fujibayashi
26,†,
Hiroyuki Katoh
27,†,
Haruo Kanno
28,†,
Hiroshi Takahashi
1,†,
Kengo Fujii
1,†,
Masayuki Miyagi
29,†,
Gen Inoue
29,†,
Masashi Takaso
29,†,
Shiro Imagama
14,†,
Yoshiharu Kawaguchi
30,†,
Katsushi Takeshita
8,†,
Masaya Nakamura
10,†,
Morio Matsumoto
10,†,
Atsushi Okawa
2,† and
Masashi Yamazaki
1,†
add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba 305-8575, Japan
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo Ward, Tokyo 113-8519, Japan
3
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital, 5-11-5 Nishikawaguchi, Kawaguchishi, Saitama 332-8558, Japan
4
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kudanzaka Hospital, 1-6-12 Kudanminami, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 102-0074, Japan
5
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University Kihoku Hospital, 219 Myoji, Katsuragi-cho, Itogun, Wakayama 649-7113, Japan
6
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5 Zaifucho, Hirosaki, Aomori 036-8562, Japan
7
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Niigata University Medicine and Dental General Hospital, 1-754 Asahimachidori, Chuo Ward, Niigata 951-8520, Japan
8
Department of Orthopedics, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke 329-0498, Japan
9
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo Ward, Chiba 260-0856, Japan
10
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku Ward, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan
11
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yamaguchi Rosai Hospital, 1315-4 Onoda, Onoda-City 756-0095, Japan
12
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Osaka Rosai Hospital, 1179-3 Nagasonecho, Sakaishi 591-8025, Japan
13
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
14
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumaicho, Showa Ward, Nagoya 466-8550, Japan
15
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita 15, Nishi 7, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan
16
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Tsukinowa-cho, Seta, Otsu 520-2192, Japan
17
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, 23-3 Matsuoka Shimoaizuki, Eiheiji-cho, Yoshida-gun, Fukui 910-1193, Japan
18
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-0023, Japan
19
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kawamoto Memorial Clinic, 5397-3 Yoshinocho, Kagoshima-City 892-0871, Japan
20
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita-shi, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
21
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume-shi 830-0011, Japan
22
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Hamamatsu 431-3125, Japan
23
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Japan
24
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo Ward, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan
25
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, 880 Kitakobayashi, Mibu-machi, Shimotsuga-gun, Tochigi 321-0293, Japan
26
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan
27
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Surgical Science, Tokai University School of Medicine, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara 259-1193, Japan
28
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tohoku University School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryomachi, Aoba Ward, Sendai 980-8574, Japan
29
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami Ward, Sagamihara 252-0375, Japan
30
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama 930-0194, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Japanese Multicenter Research Organization for Ossification of the Spinal Ligament.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(21), 5026; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215026
Submission received: 16 September 2021 / Revised: 21 October 2021 / Accepted: 22 October 2021 / Published: 28 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Orthopedics)

Abstract

:
Postoperative neck pain has been reported as an unsolved postoperative complication of surgery for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). The aim of the present study was to elucidate factors having a significant association with postoperative deterioration of neck pain in cervical OPLL patients. We studied a cohort of patients in a prospective registry of 478 patients who had undergone cervical spine surgery for cervical OPLL. We excluded those without evaluation of preoperative neck pain. Therefore, 438 patients were included in the present study. Neck pain was evaluated with the visual analogue scale (VAS, 0–100 mm). Postoperative neck pain deterioration was defined as a ≥20 mm increase of VAS neck pain. Patient factors, neurological status, imaging factors and surgical factors were assessed. Univariate analyses followed by multivariate analysis using stepwise logistic regression was performed. Six months after surgery, 50 (11.6%) patients showed postoperative neck pain deterioration and 76 (17.4%) patients showed postoperative neck pain deterioration 2 years after surgery. Six months after surgery, the rate of neck pain deterioration was significantly higher in patients who had undergone posterior surgery. Two years after surgery, the number of levels fused was significantly correlated with neck pain deterioration.

1. Introduction

Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), widely observed in Asian people, is ectopic ligamentous ossification that can cause spinal cord or nerve root compression, or both, when the ossification foci thicken [1,2,3]. For patients with impairment of activities of daily living caused by OPLL, decompression-fusion surgery is recommended [4]. Although recent progress in understanding the pathology and development of spinal instrumentation could produce a better neurological outcome, postoperative neck pain has been reported as an unsolved postoperative complication of surgery for cervical OPLL [5,6]. Our ultimate goal is to attenuate postoperative neck pain after decompression-fusion surgeries for cervical OPLL. As a first step, the primary aim of the present study was to elucidate factors having a significant association with postoperative deterioration of neck pain in a cohort of patients, using a prospective multicenter registry of patients with surgically-treated cervical OPLL.

2. Materials and Methods

We studied a cohort of patients in a prospective registry of 478 patients who had undergone cervical spine surgery for myelopathy caused by cervical OPLL. Among those patients, we excluded those without evaluation of preoperative neck pain. We ultimately included 438 patients with treated cervical OPLL (Figure 1, Table 1). Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
Surgical procedures included in the present registry were as follows: Laminoplasty includes both open-door laminoplasty and French-door laminoplasty. Struts to keep laminae enlarged includes plate, a hydroxyapatite spacer and an autologous spinous process were used. Posterior decompression and fusion means posterior instrumented fusion combined with laminoplasty/laminectomy. Anterior decompression and fusion consists of corpectomy and floating/extirpation of ossified lesions and bone grafts augmented with a plate. A-P means anterior decompression and posterior instrumented fusion. Indication for surgical treatment was based on myelopathy causing impairment of activities of daily living. Precise surgical indication, choice of surgical procedures and detailed surgical procedures are different at each institution. Surgeons belonging to each institution performed surgeries; therefore, 72 surgeons performed surgery in the present registry.
Neck pain was evaluated with the visual analogue scale (VAS, 0–100 mm) preoperatively, then 6 months and 2 years after surgery. Postoperative neck pain deterioration was defined as a ≥20 mm increase of VAS neck pain. Patient factors, including age at surgery, sex, body mass index, disease duration and diabetes mellitus, were assessed. Neurological status was assessed with the Japanese Orthopedic Association score for evaluating cervical myelopathy (JOA score; 0–17 points [7]) preoperatively, and at 6 months and 2 years after surgery. JOA score is widely known as a well standardized evaluation/classification tool for cervical myelopathy, and its consistency/reproducibility between surgeons is also well known. The recovery rate of JOA score (%) was calculated as follows: (postoperative JOA score—preoperative JOA score)/(17 (full score)—preoperative JOA score) × 100 [8]. Imaging factors were analyzed preoperatively, and at 6 months and 2 years after surgery, as follows: type of OPLL (continuous, segmental, mixed, and localized types [9]), canal narrowing rate (thickness of OPLL at its peak level/anteroposterior diameter of corresponding spinal level (%)), postoperative change of C2-7 angle (angle between inferior endplates of C2 and C7 vertebral bodies), change of C2-7 range of motion (ROM; subtraction of C2-7 angle from extension position to flexion position) and spinal cord signal intensity change in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2-weighted images. Surgical factors, including surgical procedures (laminoplasty, posterior decompression with instrumented fusion (PDF), anterior decompression and fusion (ADF), anteroposterior decompression and fusion (A-P)), and number of levels fused, were determined.
We first performed univariate analyses followed by multivariate analysis using stepwise logistic regression to elucidate the independent factors having a significant positive association with postoperative neck pain deterioration. Postoperative neck pain deterioration, which was defined as a ≥20 mm increase of VAS neck pain, was set as a response variable. The abovementioned factors, including background factors for the patients, surgical factors, neurological status, and imaging factors, were set as explanatory variables. All the factors were checked for their multicollinearity with each other before univariate analyses. Factors with p < 0.1 in initial univariate analyses were then analyzed by stepwise logistic regression. Factors with p < 0.05 were determined as independent factors having a significant positive association with postoperative neck pain deterioration. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated for factors screened. In addition, we performed statistical analyses for factors having a significant association with neck pain deterioration or attenuation between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. Comparisons between patients in the group not showing neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery demonstrated both pain deterioration and no deterioration 2 years after surgery. In other words, this group showed neck pain deterioration between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. By contrast, comparisons between patients in the group showing neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery demonstrated both pain deterioration and no deterioration 2 years after surgery. In other words, this group showed neck pain attenuation between 6 months and 2 years after surgery (Figure 1). All the statistical analyses were conducted with JMP statistical analytics software (version 12.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) under the supervision of a biostatistician. Those statistical analyses were performed on data obtained 6 months and 2 years after surgery.

3. Results

Six months after surgery, neck pain significantly decreased from preoperative VAS (41.6 ± 31.6 mm) to 36.6 ± 29.1 mm (p = 0.04, Tukey Kramer HSD test). Neck pain 2 years after surgery (38.5 ± 30.7 mm) did not show a significant change compared with preoperative neck pain (p = 0.39). Fifty (11.6%) patients showed postoperative neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery, whereas the remaining 438 (88.4%) patients showed no deterioration and 76 (17.4%) patients showed postoperative neck pain deterioration 2 years after surgery (Table 2). The estimated sample size was 593 cases to obtain enough power (=0.8) calculated with power analysis (α error: 0.05, overall power: 0.58, power analysis with JMP ver. 12) and effect size was 0.67.
Among 50 patients showing postoperative neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery, 23 showed attenuation of neck pain, and the remaining 27 showed no recovery from neck pain. Thus, neck pain deterioration in 49 of 76 patients occurred between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. Six months after surgery, the rate of neck pain deterioration was significantly higher in patients who had undergone laminoplasty or PDF than in those who had undergone ADF or A-P (p = 0.02, Table 3). Two years after surgery, the number of levels fused was significantly correlated with neck pain deterioration (p < 0.01, Table 3). By initial univariate analyses, the number of levels fused was the only screened factor; therefore, we no longer performed multivariate analysis 2 years after surgery. Number of levels fused was associated with neck pain deterioration between 6 months and 2 years after surgery (p = 0.02, Figure 1). Number of levels fused was negatively associated with neck pain attenuation from 6 months to 2 years after surgery (p = 0.02, Figure 1). The other factors, including patient factors (preoperative VAS neck pain, BMI, diabetes, etc.) and imaging factors, had no significant influence on neck pain deterioration. The cut-off value of the “No. of levels fused” to have a significant association with neck pain deterioration 2 years after surgery was six levels (ROC analysis with JMP ver. 12, AUC = 0.67). Therefore, fusion surgery for six levels or more could cause neck pain deterioration.

4. Discussion

The present results showed that a posterior approach was significantly associated with postoperative neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery. In addition, there was no significant difference in the proportion of those with neck pain deterioration between patients who had undergone PDF or LMP. This suggests that the surgical invasion to posterior paraspinal muscles might cause postoperative neck pain. Previous reports revealed a significant association between muscle invasion and postoperative neck pain, specifically axial pain [10,11]. Hosono reported that avoiding surgical detachment of C7 spinous process nuchal ligament insertion and C2 semispinalis or paraspinal muscles attenuated postoperative axial neck and shoulder pain [12]. Ishibashi reported that the preservation of C2 muscle attachment by C3 laminectomy (not laminoplasty) can attenuate postoperative neck pain [13]. These lines of evidence suggest a close relationship between muscle invasion and postoperative neck pain. The present results for neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery are consistent with those described previously. Efforts to decrease surgical invasion to paraspinal muscles related to a posterior approach are essential to attenuate neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery.
Two years after surgery there was a significant association between neck pain deterioration and the number of levels fused, but not surgical procedures. This suggests that there is no significant influence of a posterior approach-related paraspinal muscle injury to neck pain deterioration in the mid-to-long term. By contrast, the number of levels fused was significantly associated with postoperative neck pain deterioration. We found that the neck pain in 49 of 388 patients without neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery worsened between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. In addition, the neck pain in 23 of 50 patients with neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery reduced between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. The number of levels fused was significantly associated with this late neck pain deterioration, whereas the type of surgical procedure was not significantly associated with this late neck pain deterioration. These lines of evidence suggest that the number of levels fused might be independent of posterior surgery-related muscle damage. The significant association between number of levels fused and neck pain deterioration suggests that limited mobility of the cervical spine might cause neck pain. Previous reports indicated that excessive longer external fixation using a neck collar can cause greater neck pain than a shorter time of external fixation after cervical spine surgery [14]. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis comparing cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion found that neck pain was significantly lower in a group with disc arthroplasty than in a group with fusion [15,16,17,18]. These reports suggest a possible relationship between the restriction of cervical spine motion and neck pain deterioration. Paraspinal muscle atrophy induced by multilevel fusion surgery is a possible cause of motion restriction-related neck pain. Unfortunately, we collected MRI data only in sagittal images to evaluate spinal cord intensity change, resulting in a lack of axial MRI images which would enable us to assess paravertebral muscular atrophy.
A major limitation of the present study is that the present registry lacks sagittal alignment parameters, although recent studies revealed the close relationship between cervical sagittal alignment impairment and neck pain deterioration. Posterior surgery, even in fusion surgery, can lead to sagittal alignment worsening after surgery. Therefore, the assessment of sagittal alignment will be mandatory for elucidating the precise etiology of neck pain deterioration. Thus, a collection of sagittal alignment parameters should be considered in the near future. Another possible limitation is the lack of detailed pain data about its characteristics, precise location and relationship to motion, and so forth.
The precise etiology of neck pain deterioration after surgery remains to be fully elucidated; however, the present results suggest that the number of fusion levels must be kept at the minimum necessary to avoid postoperative neck pain after surgery for OPLL.

5. Conclusions

A posterior approach was significantly associated with neck pain deterioration 6 months after surgery for cervical OPLL, and the number of levels fused was significantly associated with neck pain deterioration 2 years after the surgery.

Author Contributions

M.K., T.Y., K.K. (Kazuo Kusano), A.K. and Y.K. contributed to planning and conduct of the present study and to reporting the present manuscript. S.E., K.S., K.K. (Keiichi Katsumi), T.F., S.M. (Satoshi Maki), H.T., K.F., M.M. (Masayuki Miyagi), S.I. (Shiro Imagama), K.T., M.N., M.M. (Morio Matsumoto), A.O. and M.Y. contributed to conception and design of the present study and to reporting the present study. Y.N. (Yukihiro Nakagawa), T.H., K.W. (Kanichiro Wada), N.N., K.W. (Kota Watanabe), T.K. (Tsukasa Kanchiku), Y.N. (Yukitaka Nagamoto), Y.O., K.A., H.N. (Hiroaki Nakashima), M.T., K.M. (Kanji Mori), H.N. (Hideaki Nakajima), M.T. (Masahiko Takahata), K.M. (Kazuma Murata), S.M. (Shunji Matsunaga), T.K. (Takashi Kaito), K.Y., S.K. (Sho Kobayashi), S.K. (Satoshi Kato), T.O., S.I. (Satoshi Inami), S.F., H.K. (Hiroyuki Katoh), H.K. (Haruo Kanno), G.I., M.T. (Masashi Takaso) contributed to conducting the present study and to edit the present manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by a Health and Labor Science Research grant (number 201610008B) and a grant from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (number 16ek0109136h0002).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional review board of each participating institution (protocol code 28-34; 14 March 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study to participate in this study and for publication of this study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Wu, J.C.; Chen, Y.C.; Huang, W.C. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in cervical spine: Prevalence, management, and prognosis. Neurospine 2018, 15, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Aljuboori, Z.; Boakye, M. The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A review article. Cureus 2019, 11, e5074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Boody, B.S.; Lendner, M.; Vaccaro, A.R. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine: A review. Int. Orthop. 2019, 43, 797–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wilson, J.R.; Barry, S.; Fisher, D.J.; Skelly, A.C.; Arnold, P.M.; Riew, K.D.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Traynelis, V.C.; Fehlings, M.G. Frequancy, timing, and predictors of neurological dysfunction in the nonmyelopathic patients with cervical spinal cord compression, canal stenosis, and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 2013, 38, S37–S54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tetreault, L.; Ibrahim, A.; Côté, P.; Singh, A.; Fehlings, M.G. A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2016, 24, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Smith, Z.A.; Buchanan, C.C.; Raphael, D.; Khoo, L.T. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: Pathogenesis, management, and current surgical approaches. A review. Neurosurg. Focus 2011, 30, E10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Scoring system for cervical myelopathy. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1994, 68, 490–503. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  8. Hirabayashi, K.; Toyama, Y. Choice of surgical procedure for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligaments. In Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament; Yonenobu, K., Sakou, T., Ono, K., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 1997; pp. 135–142. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tsuyama, N. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the spine. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1984, 184, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hosono, N.; Yonenobu, K.; Ono, K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. A noticeable complication. Spine 1996, 21, 1969–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Riew, K.D.; Raich, A.L.; Dettori, J.R.; Heller, J.G. Neck pain following cervical laminoplasty: Does preservation of the C2 muscle attachments and/or C7 matter? Evid. Based Spine Care J. 2013, 4, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Hosono, N.; Sakaura, H.; Mukai, Y.; Fujii, R.; Yoshikawa, H. C3-6 laminoplasty takes over C3-7 laminoplasty with significantly lower incidence of axial neck pain. Eur. Spine J. 2006, 15, 1375–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Kudo, H.; Takeuchi, K.; Wada, K.; Kumagai, G.; Tanaka, S.; Asari, T.; Araki, R.; Yokoyama, T.; Ishibashi, Y. Ten-year long term results of modified cervical double-door laminoplasty with C3 laminectomy preserving the semispinalis cervicis inserted into the axis compared with those of conventional cervical laminoplasty. Clin. Spine Surg. 2021, 34, E147–E153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kawaguchi, Y.; Kanamori, M.; Ishihara, H.; Nobukiyo, M.; Seki, S.; Kimura, T. Preventive measures for axial symptoms following cervical laminoplasty. J. Spinal. Disord. Tech. 2003, 16, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wang, Q.L.; Tu, Z.M.; Hu, P.; Kontos, F.; Li, Y.W.; Li, L.; Dai, Y.L.; Lv, G.H.; Wang, B. Long-term results comparing cervical disc arthroplasty to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 12, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Li, Y.; Shen, H.; Khan, K.Z.; Fang, S.; Liao, Z.; Liu, W. Comparison of multilevel cervical disc replacement and multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion: A systematic review of biomechanical and clinical evidence. World Neurosurg. 2018, 116, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kan, S.L.; Yuan, Z.F.; Ning, G.Z.; Liu, F.F.; Sun, J.C.; Feng, S.Q. Cervical disc arthroplasty for symptomatic cervical disc disease: Traditional and Bayesian meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 35, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Zou, S.; Gao, J.; Xu, B.; Lu, X.; Han, Y.; Meng, H. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur. Spine J. 2017, 26, 985–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Patients who had undergone cervical spine surgery for myelopathy caused by cervical OPLL. We excluded those without evaluation of preoperative neck pain. We ultimately included 438 patients with treated cervical OPLL.
Figure 1. Patients who had undergone cervical spine surgery for myelopathy caused by cervical OPLL. We excluded those without evaluation of preoperative neck pain. We ultimately included 438 patients with treated cervical OPLL.
Jcm 10 05026 g001
Table 1. Patient demographics.
Table 1. Patient demographics.
Demographics (n = 438)
Male:Female (cases)325:113
age at surgery (years old)63.6 ± 11.6
disease duration (months)42.8 (0–548)
body mass index25.7 ± 4.3
diabetes (No. of cases)134/438
JOA score (pts.)
Pre-op.10.5 ± 3.0
Post-op. 2y13.9 ± 2.9
recovery rate (%)46.2 ± 33.5
pre-op. neck pain (VAS, mm)1.5 ± 31.6
Surgical procedures (cases)
Laminoplasty240 (C7 involvement: 154/240)
Posterior decompression & fusion104
Anterior decompression & fusion82
A-P12
Number of levels fused4.2 (1–8)
Imaging findings
Type of OPLL (cases)
Continuous58
Segmental161
Mixed190
Localized29
Canal narrowing rate (%)43.9 ± 15.6
C2-7 angle (°)9.3 ± 11.7 (ΔC2–7 angle: −1.1 ± 10.1)
range of motion (°)26.7 ± 13.9 (ΔROM: −10.1 ± 15.6)
T2 high signal change (cases)373/438
Table 2. Changes in VAS neck pain.
Table 2. Changes in VAS neck pain.
Neck Pain (VAS, 0–100 mm)p-Value (vs. Pre-Op.)
pre-op.41.6 ± 31.6 mm
post-op. 6Mo36.6 ± 29.1 mm * 0.02
pain deterioration > 20 mm (cases)50/438 (11.4%)
post-op. 2y38.5 ± 30.7 mm 0.14
pain deterioration > 20 mm (cases)76/438 (17.4%)
*: p < 0.05 vs. pre-op.
Table 3. Possible factors associated with postoperative neck pain deterioration.
Table 3. Possible factors associated with postoperative neck pain deterioration.
Univariate Analyses6 Mo2 y
Patient factor
age0.800.36
sex0.980.12
BMI0.810.43
disease duration0.280.38
DM0.130.54
Neurological status
JOA score recovery rate0.02 *0.20
Imaging factor
types of OPLL0.650.27
canal occupying ratio0.250.67
ΔC2-7 angle0.760.88
ΔC2-7 ROM0.310.72
MRI T2 high signal0.780.50
Surgical factors
Surgical procedures0.04 *0.81
No. of levels fused0.03 *0.002 *
Multivariate analysis (6 Mo)
JOA score recovery rate0.20
Surgical procedures0.02 *
No. of levels fused0.40
*: p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Koda, M.; Yoshii, T.; Egawa, S.; Sakai, K.; Kusano, K.; Nakagawa, Y.; Hirai, T.; Wada, K.; Katsumi, K.; Kimura, A.; et al. Factors Significantly Associated with Postoperative Neck Pain Deterioration after Surgery for Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Study of a Cohort Using a Prospective Registry. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5026. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215026

AMA Style

Koda M, Yoshii T, Egawa S, Sakai K, Kusano K, Nakagawa Y, Hirai T, Wada K, Katsumi K, Kimura A, et al. Factors Significantly Associated with Postoperative Neck Pain Deterioration after Surgery for Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Study of a Cohort Using a Prospective Registry. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(21):5026. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Koda, Masao, Toshitaka Yoshii, Satoru Egawa, Kenichiro Sakai, Kazuo Kusano, Yukihiro Nakagawa, Takashi Hirai, Kanichiro Wada, Keiichi Katsumi, Atsushi Kimura, and et al. 2021. "Factors Significantly Associated with Postoperative Neck Pain Deterioration after Surgery for Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Study of a Cohort Using a Prospective Registry" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 21: 5026. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215026

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop