PubMed · 5763365
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G Maitland. 1969. A cervical halter.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5763365/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
STUDY DESIGN: In a study investigating the correlation between a set of designed criteria and judgments of surgical experience, 100 cervical magnetic resonance images from different patients were used. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate reliable and reproducible anatomic measurements that can aid spine surgeons in selecting surgical approaches for anterior spine fusion in the cervicothoracic region. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical approaches to the cervicothoracic junction vary among surgeons. Whereas sternotomy provides maximum exposure, less extensive approaches are preferred to minimize surgical trauma, provided surgical goals are not compromised. No quantitative criteria currently exist to determine before surgery the least invasive surgical approach for sufficiently exposing pertinent anatomy. METHODS: Thirteen geometric variables designed to be clinically practical and to expose important anatomic relations were used to evaluate 100 sagittal scout cervical magnetic resonance image sequences. An experienced spine surgeon independently rated each image for the most appropriate surgical approach to the C5-T2 region. The ratings were tested for interrater reliability using a second spine surgeon. After testing for interrater and intrarater reliability, the geometric measurements were correlated with the surgeon's selected surgical approaches for each intervertebral segment (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Instrument manubrial thoracic distances, reflecting standardized heights of intervertebral discs above or below the superior tip of the manubrium, were the most reliable, reproducible, and correlative with the choice of surgical approach. All the measurements but one, the instrument manubrial thoracic distance for T1/T2, demonstrated interrater and intrarater reliability, with an interclass correlation of at least 0.70. The primary surgeon-investigator indicated the anterior approach with sternotomy (n = 3) or the transverse cervical approach (n = 97) for the C7/T1 exposure, and the anterior approach with sternotomy (n = 43) or the transverse cervical approach (n = 57) for the T1/T2 exposure. The interrater questionnaire reliability results indicated statistical agreement between the primary surgeon-investigator and the second cervical spine surgeon at all vertebral segments evaluated. Instrument manubrial thoracic distances showed the strongest significant correlation with the surgical approach, demonstrating a statistical power of 1. For the C7/T1 exposure, the instrument manubrial thoracic distance for C7/T1 was 1.9 +/- 2 cm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41 to 2.22) for the transverse cervical approach, and -3.3 +/- 1.3 cm (95% CI = -4.79 to -1.75)] for the anterior approach with sternotomy. The instrument manubrial thoracic distance measurements for C5/C6, C6/C7, and T1/T2 also showed nonoverlapping 95% confidence intervals for the transverse cervical versus the anterior approach with sternotomy for the C7/T1 exposure. For the T1/T2 exposure, all four instrument manubrial thoracic distance measurements again showed statistically significant differences between approaches, with nonoverlapping 95% confidence intervals and a statistical power of 1. In addition, the measurements elaborating the anterior-to-posterior distance of the thoracic outlet and the measurements of the angle between the planes of the intervertebral disc and the sternum also showed statistically significant differences between approaches for the T1/T2 segment, with a statistical power of at least 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: Strong correlations exist between objective measurements and the choice of surgical approach for anterior spine fusion. Among investigated anatomic relations, the instrument manubrial thoracic distance correlated most reliably with the surgeons' choice of the anterior approach. Such objective measurements represent tools that cervical spine surgeons can use to determine the surgical approach.
STUDY DESIGN: This study involved a search of MEDLINE (1966 to 2000), EMBASE (1980 to 2000), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The authors of the identified randomized controlled trials were contacted to detect any additional published or unpublished data. The trials selected for this study included all the truly unconfounded or quasi-randomized controlled investigations allocating patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy to 1) "best medical management" or "decompressive surgery (with or without some form of fusion) plus best medical management," or 2) "early decompressive surgery" or "delayed decompressive surgery." Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy is associated with improved outcome, as compared with conservative management, and whether the timing of surgery (immediate or delayed because of persistence or progression of relevant symptoms and signs) has an impact on outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical spondylosis causes pain and disability by compressing the spinal cord or roots. Surgery to relieve the compression may reduce the pain and disability. However, it is associated with a small but definite risk. This study sought to assess the balance of risk and benefit from surgery. METHODS: Two trials involving a total of 130 patients were included. One trial with 81 patients compared surgical decompression with either physiotherapy or cervical collar immobilization in patients with cervical radiculopathy. RESULTS: The short-term effects of surgery, in terms of pain, weakness, or sensory loss were superior. However, at 1 year no significant differences between the groups were observed. Another trial with 49 patients compared the effects of surgery with those of conservative treatment in patients who had a mild functional deficit associated with cervical myelopathy. No significant differences were observed between the groups up to 2 years after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The data from the reviewed trials were inadequate to provide reliable conclusions on the balance of risk and benefit from cervical spine surgery for spondylotic radiculopathy or myelopathy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.