Cervicothoracic junction instrumentation: Single center retrospective clinical analysis

Aim: The surgery of lesions involving the cervicothoracic junction was one of the challenging problems in spinal surgery practice. This area is quite unusual, especially since it is a transition zone from hard and relatively stationary thoracic and lumbar vertebrae to the kyphotic and movable cervicothoracic vertebrae. The fact that the cervicothoracic junction differs from the other vertebrae anatomy forces the surgeons to push into more conservative approaches. The instability of this component may cause fatal clinical results and may be necessary to stabilize due to tumor, trauma, infection, or degeneration.Material and Methods: In this study, we examined 24 patients who underwent cervicothoracic region in our clinic between 2012 and 2017 retrospectively, and their age, gender, pathologies that cause medical need, instability of the vertebrae, howmany vertebrae were included in the pathology, surgical methods and results were evaluated.Results: According to Frankel scores, neurological examination improved in 4 cases (17%) in the early postoperative period and worsening in 1 patient (4%). In the other 19 patients (79%), Frankel scores were not different in the preoperative and early postoperative examination.Conclusion: Neurosurgeons should treat the instability of this region discreetly, and they should keep in mind that the surgical procedures involving this area may affect the stability of this region iatrogenically. In patients with cervicothoracic junctional pathologies, motor and sensory loss may occur below the relevant segment, and functional rehabilitation of these patients may be possible with early diagnosis, surgery, and post-rehabilitation applications.

PDF

___

1. Mazel C, Hoffmann E, Antonietti P, et al. Posterior cervicothoracic instrumentation in spine tumors. Spine 2004;29:1246-53.
2. Aldrich EF, Weber PB, Crow WN. Halifax interlaminar clamp for posterior cervical fusion: a long-term follow-up review. J Neurosurg 1993;78:702-8.
3. Maniker AH, Schulger M, Duran HL. Halifax clamps: efficacy and complications in posterior cervical stabilization. Surgical neurology 1995;43:140-6.
4. Stanescu S, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting R, et al. Morphometric evaluation of the cervico-thoracic junction. Practical considerations for posterior fixation of the spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:2082-8.
5. Kreshak JL, Kim DH, Lindsey DP, et al. Posterior stabilization at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study. Spine 2002;27:2763-70.
6. Bueff HU, Lotz JC, Colliou OK, Instrumentation of the cervicothoracic junction after destabilization. Spine 1995;20:1789-92.
7. Chapman JR, Anderson PA, Pepin C, et al. Posterior instrumentation of the unstable cervicothoracic spine. J Neurosurg 1996;84:552-8.
8. Le H, Balabhadra R, Park J, et al. Surgical treatment of tumors involving the cervicothoracic junction. Neurosurgical focus 2003;15:E3.
9. Placantonakis DG, Laufer I, Wang JC, et al. Posterior stabilization strategies following resection of cervicothoracic junction tumors: review of 90 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:111-9.
10. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2005;366:643-8.
11. Boockvar JA, Philips MF, Telfeian AE, et al. Results and risk factors for anterior cervicothoracic junction surgery. J Neurosurg 2001; 94:12-7.