The Effect of C2 Muscular Exposure Technique on Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes After C2-T2 Posterior Cervical Fusion

Clin Spine Surg. 2024 Apr 10. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001626. Online ahead of print.

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Objective: To determine whether the C2 exposure technique was a predictor of change in cervical alignment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for degenerative indications.

Background: In PCDF handling of the C2 posterior paraspinal musculature during the operative approach varies by surgeon technique. To date, no studies have investigated whether maintenance of the upper cervical semispinalis cervicis attachments as compared with complete reflection of upper cervical paraspinal musculature from the posterior bony elements is associated with superior radiographic and clinical outcomes after PCDF.

Patients and methods: All adult patients who underwent C2-T2 PCDF for myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy at multi-institutional academic centers between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were dichotomized by the C2 exposure technique into semispinalis preservation or midline muscular reflection groups. Preoperative and short and long-term postoperative radiographic outcomes (upper cervical alignment, global alignment, and fusion status) and PROMs (Visual Analog Scale-Neck, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form-12) were collected. Univariate analysis compared patient factors, radiographic measures, and PROMs across C2 exposure groups.

Results: A total of 129 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (73 muscle preservation and 56 muscle reflection). Patients in the muscular preservation group were on average younger (P= 0.005) and more likely to have bone morphogenic protein (P< 0.001) and C2 pars screws (P= 0.006) used during surgery. Preoperative to postoperative changes in C2 slope, C2 tilt, C2-C3 segmental lordosis, C2-C3 listhesis, C0-C2 Cobb angle, proximal junctional kyphosis, ADI, C1 lamina-occiput distance, C2 sagittal vertical axis, C2-C7 lordosis, and PROMs at all follow-up intervals did not vary significantly by C2 exposure technique. Likewise, there were no significant differences in fusion status, C2-C3 pseudoarthrosis, C2 screw loosening, and complication and revision rates between C2 exposure groups.

Conclusions: Preservation of C2 semispinalis attachments versus muscular reflection did not significantly impact cervical alignment, clinical outcomes, or proximal junction complications in long-segment PCDF.

Level of evidence: Level III.