Evidence Hub

Regional bone mineral density differences measured by quantitative computed tomography in patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery

Salzmann SN, Okano I, Ortiz Miller C, Chiapparelli E, Reisener MJ, Winter F, Shue J, Carrino JA et al.

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2020

194 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Clinically, the association between bone mineral density (BMD) and surgical instrumentation efficacy is well recognized. Although several studies have quantified the BMD of the human lumbar spine, comprehensive BMD data for the cervical spine is limited. The few available studies included young and healthy patient samples, which may not represent the typical cervical fusion patient. Currently no large scale study provides detailed BMD information of the cervical and first thoracic vertebrae in patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine possible trabecular BMD variations throughout the cervical spine and first thoracic vertebra in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and to assess the correlation between BMDs of the spinal levels C1-T1.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a retrospective case series.

PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing ACDF from 2015 to 2018 at a single, academic institution with available preoperative CT imaging were included in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measure was BMD measured by QCT.

METHODS: Patients that underwent ACDF from 2015 to 2018 at a single, academic institution were included in this study. Subjects with previous cervical instrumentation or missing/incomplete preoperative cervical spine CT imaging were excluded. Asynchronous quantitative computed tomography (QCT) measurements of the lateral masses of C1 and the C2-T1…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 194 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free