Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adjacent segment degeneration after intervertebral fusion surgery by means of cervical block vertebrae

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of cervical block vertebrae is unknown. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the cause of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) after cervical fusion.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the incidence of cervical block vertebrae? Is there a gender difference? (2) Among cervical block vertebrae cases, is ASD related to age and segment? And what is the specific relationship? (3) What are the imaging findings and characteristics of this disease?

Patients and methods

We retrospectively diagnosed cervical block vertebrae cases with bony fusions in any segments of the cervical spine without intervertebral fusion surgery of 33,762 patients reported from 2006 to 2011 in north China. Then the X-ray of the obtained cases were observed and counted. The primary outcome was incidence of ASD according to age and segment. The secondary outcome measures were C2–7 angle in fusion (single segment fusion of lower cervical vertebra) and control groups (randomly selected cases of non-fusion), Cobb’s angle of fusion segments, and curvature of each lower cervical segment in the control group.

Results

A total of 218 cervical block vertebrae cases were found, with a incidence of 0.65%, and C2–3 represented the highest number of fusion segment cases. There were no significant differences in the incidence by sex. Varying degrees of degeneration in the adjacent segment was present in 112 cases (51.4%). The incidence of ASD increased with age, with the ASD growth rate reaching its peak at the age of 51–60 years (55.08%). Cervical curvature shows no significant difference between patients with cervical block vertebrae and normal individuals. The segmental curvature was lower in the fusion group than in the control group, with statistical significance achieved in fusion segments located in C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7, but not C3–4.

Conclusions

Fusion segments located in C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7 are more prone to ASD than C3–4. The incidence of ASD in patients with vertebral fusion increases with age.

Level of evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mcmaster MJ, Ohtsuka K (1982) The natural history of congenital scoliosis. A study of two hundred and fifty-one patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 64(8):1128–1147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mcmaster MJ, Singh H (1999) Natural history of congenital kyphosis and kyphoscoliosis. A study of one hundred and twelve patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81(10):1367–1383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shands AR Jr, Eisberg HB (1955) The incidence of scoliosis in the state of Delaware; a study of 50,000 minifilms of the chest made during a survey for tuberculosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 37-A(6):1243–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wynne-Davies R (1975) Congenital vertebral anomalies: etiology and relationship to spina bifida cystica. J Med Genet 12(3):280–288

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hutchinson J (1894) Deformity of shoulder girdle. Br Med J 1:669–673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke JJ (1906) A note on a case of congenital deformity of the spine. Am J Orthop Surg 24(2):160–162

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bayrakli F, Guclu B, Yakicier C et al (2013) Mutation in MEOX1 gene causes a recessive Klippel–Feil syndrome subtype. BMC Genet 14:95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Duncan PA (1977) Embryologic pathogenesis of renal agenesis associated with cervical vertebral anomalies (Klippel–Feil phenotype). Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 13(3D):91–101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Basu SN (1961) Klippel–Feil syndrome. Indian J Pediatr 28:57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gunderson CH, Greenspan RH, Glaser GH, Lubs HA (1967) The Klippel–Feil syndrome: genetic and clinical reevaluation of cervical fusion. Medicine (Baltimore) 46(6):491–512

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Michie I, Clark M (1968) Neurological syndromes associated with cervical and craniocervical anomalies. Arch Neurol 18(3):241–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mosberg WH Jr (1953) The Klippel–Feil syndrome; etiology and treatment of neurologic signs. J Nerv Ment Dis 117:479–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shoul MI, Ritvo M (1952) Clinical and roentgenological manifestations of the Klippel–Feil syndrome (congenital fusion of the cervical vertebrae, brevicollis); report of eight additional cases and review of the literature. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 68(3):369–385

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15(6):602–617

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 5(96):223–224

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lund T, Oxland TR (2011) Adjacent level disk disease—is it really a fusion disease? Orthop Clin N Am 42(4):529–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chung JY, Kim SK, Jung ST, Lee KB (2014) Clinical adjacent-segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results after a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Spine J 14(10):2290–2298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Papanastassiou ID, Baaj AA, Dakwar E, Eleraky M, Vrionis FD (2011) Failure of cervical arthroplasty in a patient with adjacent segment disease associated with Klippel–Feil syndrome. Indian J Orthop 45(2):174–177

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Falk RH, Mackinnon J (1976) Klippel–Feil syndrome associated with aortic coarctation. Heart 38(11):1220–1221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Li JX, Sun DY (1982) X-ray diagnostics. People’s Medical Publishing House, Beijing, pp 69–70

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brown MW, Templeton AW, Hodges FJ 3rd (1964) The incidence of acquired and congenital fusions in the cervical spine. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 92:1255–1259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gray SW, Romaine CB, Skandalakis JE (1964) Congenital fusion of the cervical vertebrae. Surg Gynecol Obstet 118:373–385

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee CK, Weiss AB (1981) Isolated congenital cervical block vertebrae below the axis with neurological symptoms. Spine 2:118–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, Watanabe K, Chiba K, Toyama Y et al (2010) Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(1):36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81(4):519–528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Karasick D, Schweitzer ME, Vaccaro AR (1998) The traumatized cervical spine in Klippel–Feil syndrome: imaging features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170(1):85–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Schwab JS, Diangelo DJ, Foley KT (2006) Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(21):2439–2448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yi S, Kim SH, Shin HC, Kim KN, Yoon DH (2007) Cervical arthroplasty in a patient with Klippel–Feil syndrome. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 149(8):805–809

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300211, China

    Xinlong Ma, Yuren Du, Mingjie Kuang & Baoyi Ma

  2. Department of Radiology, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300211, China

    Shuli Wang

  3. Orthopaedics Institute of Tianjin, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, China

    Jianxiong Ma

  4. Department of Spine Surgery, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300211, China

    Tao Wang

Authors
  1. Xinlong Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuren Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shuli Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianxiong Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mingjie Kuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Baoyi Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinlong Ma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Informed consent

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, X., Du, Y., Wang, S. et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after intervertebral fusion surgery by means of cervical block vertebrae. Eur Spine J 27, 1401–1407 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5371-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5371-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation