Fusion and subsidence rates of vertebral body sliding osteotomy: Comparison of 3 reconstructive techniques for multilevel cervical myelopathy

Abstract

Background context: Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) was previously reported as a technique to decompress spinal canal by translating the vertebral body anteriorly and is indicated for cervical myelopathy caused by spondylosis or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. However, little is known about its fusion and subsidence rates.

Purpose: To compare the fusion and subsidence rates of VBSO, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).

Study design/setting: Retrospective cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred sixty-eight patients who underwent VBSO, ACDF, or ACCF for the treatment of cervical myelopathy and were followed-up for more than 2 years were retrospectively reviewed.

Outcome measures: Fusion and subsidence rates, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck pain, neck disability index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were assessed.

Methods: Results of the VBSO, ACDF, and ACCF groups were compared using Student's t-test and chi-square test.

Results: The fusion rate at 1-year postoperatively and the final follow-up for VBSO was 92.9% (37/42). VBSO demonstrated a higher 1-year fusion rate than ACDF (77.9% [74/95], p=0.04) and ACCF (74.2% [23/31], p=0.04). However, the fusion rate at the final follow-up did not demonstrate significant difference. The mean amount of subsidence (ACDF group, 1.5±1.2 mm; VBSO group, 1.5±1.5 mm; p=1.00) and rate of significant subsidence of > 3 mm (ACDF group, 13.7% [13/95]; VBSO group, 14.3% [6/42]; p=1.00) were similar for ACDF and VBSO. Furthermore, the mean amount of subsidence in VBSO was significantly less than that in ACCF (1.5±1.5 mm vs 2.4±2.0 mm; p=0.04). Neck pain VAS, NDI, and JOA scores were not significantly different among the groups.

Conclusions: VBSO demonstrated faster solid union than ACDF and ACCF, although the fusion rates at the final follow-up were similar. VBSO resulted in less subsidence than ACCF at the 1-year follow-up. VBSO could be applied safely when the shape and/or location of the pathologic foci and sagittal alignment favor its application without much concern for pseudarthrosis or subsidence.