Abstract
Study Design
Retrospective multicenter study.
Objectives
To investigate surgical outcomes following posterior decompression for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) when performed by board-certified spine (BCS) or non-BCS (NBCS) surgeons.
Methods
We included 203 patients with cervical OPLL who were followed for a minimum of 1 year after surgery. Demographic information, medical history, and imaging findings were collected. Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at the final follow-up using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and the visual analog scale (VAS) for the neck. We compared outcomes between BCS surgeons, who must meet several requirements, including experience in more than 300 spinal surgeries, and NBCS surgeons.
Results
BCS surgeons performed 124 out of 203 cases, while NBCS surgeons were primary in 79 cases, with 73.4% were directly supervised by a BCS surgeon. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical duration, estimated blood loss, and perioperative complication rates between the BCS and NBCS groups. Moreover, no statistically significant group differences were observed in each position of the C2-7 angle and cervical range of motion at preoperation and the final follow-up. Preoperative and final follow-up JOA scores, VAS for the neck, and JOA score recovery rate were comparable between the two groups.
Conclusions
Surgical outcomes, including functional recovery, complication rates, and cervical dynamics, were comparable between the BCS and NBCS groups. Consequently, posterior decompression for cervical OPLL is considered safe and effective when conducted by junior surgeons who have undergone training and supervision by experienced spine surgeons.
Keywords: cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, board-certified spine surgeon, multicenter study, posterior decompression, surgical outcomes, expansive open-door laminoplasty, double-door laminoplasty, selective laminectomy with muscle preservation
Introduction
Cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is a significant condition characterized by the ossification of spinal ligaments, predominantly observed in Asian countries.1,2 Approximately half of individuals with cervical OPLL undergo ossification progression, leading to symptomatic myelopathy.1,2 Surgical decompression is commonly applied to halt neurological deterioration, and the clinical outcomes following these procedures are generally favorable and stable. There are two main methods of decompression in cervical OPLL: direct decompression through anterior approach and indirect decompression through posterior approach. 3 In particular, laminoplasty and muscle preserving selective laminectomy serve as safe and effective posterior procedures, offering the advantages of preserving cervical motion and reducing cervical instability and kyphosis.4-7
Residency programs in orthopedic surgery and spine fellowship training have traditionally taken place at academic medical centers, where surgical skills are developed through a structured approach that includes graduated responsibility and autonomy within the operating room. Fellows and residents begin their careers assisted by the primary attending in various spine surgeries, and after much experience, they have the opportunity to operate as primary surgeons.8,9 Several previous reports have suggested that when junior surgeons perform or assist in spine surgery, there is a potential increase in the risk of surgical site infections, displaced pedicle screws, and insufficient correction of scoliosis.10-15 On the other hand, comparable results were found in other studies comparing other outcomes, including postoperative results and perioperative complications, between cases led by junior and senior surgeons.16-24 Especially in the context of the cervical spine, there is limited evidence regarding how the involvement of inexperienced surgeons influences on outcomes following surgery.25,26 Recently, we investigated the outcomes of posterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) when conducted by board-certified spine (BCS) or non-BCS (NBCS) surgeons. 27 Despite the longer surgical duration in the NBCS group, postoperative functional recovery, the rate of perioperative complications, and changes in cervical dynamics on radiographs were comparable between the groups. However, given that the primary lesion in CSM stems from age-related degeneration, its pathological condition is fundamentally distinct from cervical OPLL. This variance in pathology can impact postoperative functional recovery, spinal alignment, and the frequency of complications.28,29 Therefore, investigating the impact of surgeon experience on clinical outcomes and perioperative complications in cervical OPLL is crucial to determine the benefits of posterior decompression surgery for patients with this condition.
This study aimed to compare and evaluate radiographic changes in the cervical spine, as well as the associated clinical outcomes, between BCS and NBCS surgeons following posterior decompression surgery in patients with cervical OPLL.
Materials and Methods
Study Design, Patient Demographics, and Characteristics
This retrospective study involved 203 patients with cervical OPLL, who underwent posterior decompression surgery at 16 Japanese institutions between January 2012 and December 2014. All investigators were seasoned orthopaedics spine surgeons. To be eligible for inclusion, subjects had to meet the following criteria: (1) Presentation of at least one clinical sign of myelopathy, (2) Evidence of cervical spinal cord compression on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and OPLL on X-ray or computed tomography (CT), (3) No history of previous cervical spine surgery, and (4) A minimum follow-up period of 1 year following the surgery. Meanwhile, patients were excluded if they were asymptomatic or diagnosed with CSM, cervical kyphosis, active infection, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, neoplastic spinal disease, or concomitant lumbar stenosis.
Patients participating in this study were evaluated at an outpatient clinic prior to surgery by the doctor designated as the primary surgeon, irrespective of whether the surgery was ultimately performed by a BCS or NBCS surgeon. The decision regarding the indication for surgery, technique employed, and the range of decompression levels was made collaboratively by a spine team at each institute. Three distinct surgical techniques were performed in the present study: expansive open-door laminoplasty (OD), double-door laminoplasty (DD), or selective laminectomy with muscle preservation (SL). OD, DD, and SL were performed at 10, 4, and 7 institutions, respectively.4-7 Generally, these techniques were recommended in cases of multi segmental stenosis with a narrow spinal canal and without kyphotic cervical alignment.
We examined a retrospective collection of demographic information, medical history, symptomatology, imaging, surgical summaries, and other data for all subjects in this study. The current study received approval from the Ethics and Institutional Review Board (Keio university school of medicine, approval number: #20110142), and all participants provided informed consent to be included in the study before undergoing surgery.
BCS and Non-BCS Surgeons
In Japan, the designation of a BCS surgeon requires meeting several criteria: (1) authorization as a Spine Specialist Approved by the JOA, (2) membership in the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR), (3) a surgical track record of over 300 spine and spinal cord operations, including at least 200 as the primary surgeon, with a minimum of 20 involving the cervical spine and 60 involving the lumbar spine, (4) participation in at least 2 annual meetings of the JSSR within the past 5 years, and (5) publication of at least 5 clinical papers related to spine and spinal cord disorders. In our study, 21 BCS and 18 NBCS surgeons were included. At the study’s outset (the first patient registration), the mean age and practice time as an orthopedic surgeon for NBCS surgeons were 32.1 ± 3.5 and 6.8 ± 3.4 years, respectively. Their average duration of practicing surgery at a spine training center was 1.3 ± 1.7 years. Throughout the NBCS surgeons’ careers, they had performed an average of 393.7 ± 179.8 orthopedic-related surgeries and 77.3 ± 100.0 spine surgeries. Additionally, those in this group who performed surgery without direct BCS supervision had carried out an average of 162.8 ± 172.6 spinal surgeries up to that point. Unlike the North American medical educational system, the Japanese training period for physicians lacks resident or fellow grades, categorizing spine surgeons into BCS or NBCS.
Radiographical Images and MRI Findings
In this study, we examined radiological evaluations of the cervical spine by measuring intermittent C2-7 angles from plain radiographs in the neutral, flexion, and extension position at two distinct time points: “preoperation” and “final follow-up.” The assessment of C2-7 angles involved measuring the Cobb angle, which quantified the angle between the lower endplate of the C2 vertebra and the lower endplate of the C7 vertebra. Additionally, the cervical range of motion (ROM) was calculated by subtracting the flexion C2-7 angle from the extension angle. The types of OPLL were categorized as localized, segmental, continuous, and mixed. The occupying ratio of OPLL, and the K-line were assessed through preoperative plain X-ray or CT. Preoperative MRI was utilized to evaluate the stenotic levels in OPLL and the presence of intraspinal high signal intensity area on the T2-weighted images.
Clinical Outcomes
The assessment of clinical outcomes involved evaluations at both the preoperation and final follow-up. These assessments utilized the JOA score, which can reach a maximum of 17 points. Additionally, the extent of neck pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), with scores ranging from 0 to 10. Lower VAS scores indicate a more comfortable condition, free from pain. The JOA score recovery rate (%) was calculated as follows: (final follow-up JOA score - preoperative JOA score)/(17 - preoperative JOA score) × 100. This calculation reveals the percentage improvement in JOA scores from the preoperative baseline.
Statistical Analysis
Comparative analyses of baseline demographics, surgical characteristics, radiographical findings and clinical outcomes were performed between the BCS and NBCS group using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. Statistical significance was considered for P-values less than .05, .01, and .001. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics
In the present study, 124 patients with cervical OPLL were conducted posterior decompression surgery by BCS surgeons (61.1%), and 79 were performed by NBCS surgeons (38.9%). The average duration of surgical experience was significantly longer in the BCS group compared to the NBCS group (18.9 ± 7.9 vs 9.2 ± 2.6 years; P = .008). Within the NBCS group, 58 operations (73.4%) were carried out under the direct supervision of a BCS surgeon. In these instances, the BCS surgeon actively participated in the surgery and personally guided the NBCS surgeon in terms of anatomy and technique. There were no significant differences of patient demographics between the BCS and NBCS groups in terms of age at the time of surgery (64.4 ± 10.3 vs 66.9 ± 9.3 years old; P = .074), sex (Men: Women, 79.0%: 21.0% vs 75.9%: 24.1%; P = .606), body mass index (25.8 ± 4.8 vs 24.5 ± 3.4 kg/m2; P = .802), the frequency of comorbidities (hypertension, 40.3% vs 46.8%, P = .361; diabetes mellitus, 24.2% vs 32.9%, P = .175; cardiac disease, 8.1 vs 3.9, P = .226; renal disease, .8% vs 2.5%, P = .326; malignant tumor, 4.0% vs 8.9%, P = .461; cerebrovascular disease, 4.0% vs 2.5%, P = .568; respiratory disease, 6.5% vs 6.3%, P = .972; connective tissue disease, .8% vs 3.8%, P = .135; psychiatric disease, 4.8% vs 5.1%, P = .943), or duration of postoperative follow-up (22.1 ± 10.5 vs 21.6 ± 9.8 months; P = .787). Segmental ossification was the most prevalent type in the BCS and NBCS groups, followed by the mixed type. Both groups exhibited similar trends in the ossification type (P = .806). The frequency of subjects with a positive K-line was 83.9% in the BCS group and 77.2% in the NBCS group (P = .236). The mean occupying ratios were 38.2 ± 13.6% and 40.3 ± 13.3% in the BCS and NBCS groups, respectively (P = .301). Changes in signal intensity in the spinal cord on T2-weighted MRI were detected in most cases (BCS group, 71.0%; NBCS group, 77.2%; P = .326) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Demographics of 203 Patients With OPLL Who Underwent Posterior Cervical Decompression by BCS and NBCS Surgeons.
| BCS (n = 124) | NBCS (n = 79) | P-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at the time of surgery (y/o) | 64.4 ± 10.3 | 66.9 ± 9.3 | .074 |
| Duration of surgical experience | 18.9 ± 7.9 | 9.2 ± 2.6 | .008** |
| Sex (n, %) | |||
| Men | 98 (79.0%) | 60 (75.9%) | .606 |
| Women | 26 (21.0%) | 19 (24.1%) | |
| Body mass index (kg/cm2) | 25.8 ± 4.8 | 24.5 ± 3.4 | .802 |
| Comorbidities (%) | |||
| Hypertension | 40.3 | 46.8 | .361 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 24.2 | 32.9 | .175 |
| Cardiac disease | 8.1 | 3.9 | .226 |
| Renal disease | 0.8 | 2.5 | .326 |
| Malignant tumor | 4.0 | 8.9 | .461 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 4.0 | 2.5 | .568 |
| Respiratory disease | 6.5 | 6.3 | .972 |
| Connective tissue disease | 0.8 | 3.8 | .135 |
| Psychiatric disease | 4.8 | 5.1 | .943 |
| Duration of postoperative follow-up (months) | 22.1 ± 10.5 | 21.6 ± 9.8 | .787 |
| Types of ossification (n, %) | |||
| Segmental | 57 (46.0%) | 31 (39.2%) | .806 |
| Mixed | 34 (27.4%) | 24 (30.4%) | |
| Continuous | 15 (12.1%) | 10 (12.7%) | |
| Localized | 18 (14.5%) | 14 (17.7%) | |
| K-line (+) (n, %) | 104 (83.9%) | 61 (77.2%) | .236 |
| Occupying ratio (mean %) | 38.2 ± 13.6 | 40.3 ± 13.3 | .301 |
| Presence of intraspinal high signal intensity area on T2-weighted MRI (n, %) | 88 (71.0%) | 61 (77.2%) | .326 |
Values indicate mean ± standard error, **P < .01, statistically significant difference.
OPLL, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; BCS, board-certified spine; NBCS, non-board-certified spine; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
Surgical Information and Perioperative Complications
In the BCS and NBCS groups, OD was the most frequent surgical technique (37.1%, 38.0%), followed by DD (35.5%, 36.7%) and SL (27.4%, 25.3%). The difference in surgical methodology between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = .946). There was no statistically significant difference in surgical duration (122. ± 55.6 vs 131.0 ± 52.6 min; P = .239), estimated blood loss (EBL) (69.6 ± 98.9 vs 63.8 ± 66.6 mL; P = .617), and number of operated laminae (4.7 ± 1.1 vs 4.6 ± 1.2; P = .352) between the BCS and NBCS groups. Detailed analysis revealed no significant differences in complication rates for C5 palsy (2.4% vs 2.5%; P = .960), surgical site infection (.8% vs 2.5%; P = .321), hematoma (.0% vs 1.3%; P = .209), dural tear (.0% vs 1.3%; P = .209), delirium (.8% vs 1.3%; P = .747), or neurological deterioration (.8% vs 2.5%; P = .321) in the two groups (Table 2). The occurrence of these complications was also statistically insignificant when comparing rates between BCS-supervised and BCS-unsupervised surgeries within the NBCS group (3.4% vs 9.5%; P = .277). Furthermore, there were no instances of revision surgery in any subject after the initial posterior cervical decompression.
Table 2.
Comparison of Surgical Information and Perioperative Complications Between BCS and NBCS Group.
| BCS (n = 124) | NBCS (n = 79) | P-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical procedure (n, %) | |||
| OD | 46 (37.1%) | 30 (38.0%) | .946 |
| DD | 44 (35.5%) | 29 (36.7%) | |
| SL | 34 (27.4%) | 20 (25.3%) | |
| Intraoperative information | |||
| Surgical duration (min) | 122.0 ± 55.6 | 131.0 ± 52.6 | .239 |
| EBL (mL) | 69.6 ± 98.9 | 63.8 ± 66.6 | .617 |
| Number of operated laminae | 4.7 ± 1.1 | 4.6 ± 1.2 | .352 |
| Perioperative complications (n, %) | |||
| C5 palsy | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (2.5%) | .960 |
| SSI | 1 (.8%) | 2 (2.5%) | .321 |
| Hematoma | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.3%) | .209 |
| Dural tear | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.3%) | .209 |
| Delirium | 1 (.8%) | 1 (1.3%) | .747 |
| Neurological deterioration | 1 (.8%) | 2 (2.5%) | .321 |
Values indicate mean ± standard error.
BCS, board-certified spine; NBCS, non-board-certified spine; OD, open door; DD, double door; SL, selective laminectomy; EBL, estimated blood loss; SSI, surgical site infection.
Concerning outcomes in each surgical technique (OD, DD, and SL), intraoperative information did not exhibit statistical significance between the BCS and NBCS groups in surgical duration (OD: P = .525, DD: P = .247, SL: P = .387), EBL (OD: P = .234, DD: P = .087, SL: P = .757), and the number of operated laminae (OD: P = .0.60, DD: P = .900, SL: P = .879) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Comparison of the Intraoperative Information Between the BCS and NBCS Groups for Each Surgical Technique.
| Surgical Technique | Surgical Duration (min) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| BCS (n = 124) | NBCS (n = 79) | P-Value | |
| OD | 106.7 ± 38.0 | 112.9 ± 44.0 | .525 |
| DD | 81.7 ± 23.2 | 89.7 ± 24.1 | .247 |
| SL | 169.0 ± 55.9 | 178.5 ± 37.3 | .387 |
Values indicate mean ± standard error.
BCS, board-certified spine; NBCS, non-board-certified spine; OD, open door; DD, double door; SL, selective laminectomy; EBL, estimated blood loss.
Postoperative Alterations in Cervical Alignments
The radiographical findings revealed no statistically significant difference in neutral position of the C2-7 angle between preoperation and final follow-up in BCS and NBCS group, respectively (BCS group, 10.6 ± 12.1° vs 11.1 ± 12.3°, P = .529; NBCS group, 12.7 ± 11.1° vs 11.4 ± 13.1°, P = .211). Meanwhile, the mean cervical ROM was significantly reduced after surgery, respectively (BCS group, 30.3 ± 15.0° vs 25.9 ± 12.2°, P = .001; NBCS group, 31.0 ± 14.2° vs 24.1 ± 12.1°, P < .001). In comparing the radiographic changes between the BCS and NBCS groups, no statistically significant group difference was observed in each position of the C2-7 angle at preoperation (neutral, P = .218; flexion, P = .502; extension, P = .356) and final follow-up (neutral, P = .866; flexion, P = .696; extension, P = .573). Regarding ROM of the cervical spine, there was also no significant difference between the BCS and NBCS groups in either the preoperation (30.3 ± 15.0° vs 31.0 ± 14.2°; P = .765) or final follow-up (25.9 ± 12.2° vs 24.1 ± 12.1°; P = .308) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Comparison of Preoperative and Final Follow-Up Each Cervical Sagittal Parameter Between BCS and NBCS Group.
| Parameter | BCS (n = 124) | NBCS (n = 79) | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| C2-7 angle (°) | |||
| Neutral position | |||
| Preoperation | 10.6 ± 12.1 | 12.7 ± 11.1 | .218 |
| Final follow-up | 11.1 ± 12.3 | 11.4 ± 13.1 | .866 |
| P-value (pre- vs final) | .529 | .211 | |
| Flexion position | |||
| Preoperation | −8.7 ± 11.5 | −7.6 ± 11.0 | .502 |
| Final follow-up | −5.9 ± 12.5 | −5.3 ± 10.5 | .696 |
| P-value (pre- vs final) | .018* | .176 | |
| Extension position | |||
| Preoperation | 21.7 ± 13.1 | 23.4 ± 12.7 | .356 |
| Final follow-up | 19.9 ± 13.0 | 18.8 ± 13.3 | .573 |
| P-value (pre- vs final) | .061 | <.001*** | |
| Cervical ROM (°) | |||
| Preoperation | 30.3 ± 15.0 | 31.0 ± 14.2 | .765 |
| Final follow-up | 25.9 ± 12.2 | 24.1 ± 12.1 | .308 |
| P-value (pre- vs final) | .001** | <.001*** | |
Values indicate mean ± standard error; *P < .05, **P < .01, ***P < .001, statistically significant difference.
BCS, board-certified spine; NBCS, non-board-certified spine; ROM, range of motion.
Furthermore, at the postoperative assessment, there was no evidence of new spondylolisthesis, the development of scoliosis, or progress of OPLL at the site of posterior cervical decompression.
Clinical Outcomes After Posterior Decompression
The JOA score showed a significant improvement after surgery in both the BCS (11.3 ± 2.5 vs 14.2 ± 2.1; P < .001) and NBCS (10.6 ± 3.0 vs 13.8 ± 2.3; P < .001) groups. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found in the preoperative and final follow-up JOA scores (preoperation, P = .067; final follow-up, P = .218), and JOA score recovery rate (49.9 ± 31.6 vs 46.2 ± 31.8; P = .537) between the two groups. Moreover, the changes in JOA scores were comparable between the two groups (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 3.0 ± 2.5; P = .687), and were also similar between NBCS surgeries with or without a participating BCS surgeon (3.0 ± 2.7 vs 3.0 ± 2.3; P = .986). In the VAS analysis for neck pain, there was no statistically significant difference between the BCS group and NBCS group in the preoperation and final follow-up, respectively (preoperative, 3.7 ± 2.6 vs 3.3 ± 3.0, P = .437; final follow-up, 2.5 ± 2.6 vs 2.4 ± 2.2, P = .939). In addition, when evaluating changes in VAS, the results between the two groups were comparable (−1.0 ± 2.5 vs −1.0 ± 2.9; P = .987) (Table 5).
Table 5.
Comparison of Surgical and Clinical Outcomes Between BCS and NBCS Group.
| BCS (n = 124) | NBCS (n = 79) | P-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| JOA score | |||
| Preoperation | 11.3 ± 2.5 | 10.6 ± 3.0 | .067 |
| Final follow-up | 14.2 ± 2.1 | 13.8 ± 2.3 | .218 |
| P-value (pre- vs final) | <.001*** | <.001*** | |
| ΔJOA score | 2.8 ± 2.1 | 3.0 ± 2.5 | .687 |
| JOA recovery rate (%) | 49.9 ± 31.6 | 46.2 ± 31.8 | .537 |
Values indicate mean ± standard error; ***P < .001, statistically significant difference.
BCS, board-certified spine; NBCS, non-board-certified spine; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; VAS, visual analog scale; Δ, change from preoperative to postoperative values.
Regarding outcomes in each surgical technique, the changes in JOA scores did not show statistical significance between the BCS and NBCS groups in OD (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.3 ± 2.8; P = .508), DD (2.1 ± 2.4 vs 2.7 ± 2.8; P = .462), and SL (3.1 ± 2.0 vs 2.5 ± 1.8; P = .248) (Table 6).
Table 6.
Comparison of the Alterations in JOA Scores Between the BCS and NBCS Groups for Each Surgical Technique.
| Surgical Technique | ΔJOA Score | P-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BCS (n = 124) | NBCS (n = 79) | ||
| OD | 3.2 ± 2.0 | 3.6 ± 2.8 | .508 |
| DD | 2.1 ± 2.4 | 2.7 ± 2.8 | .462 |
| SL | 3.1 ± 2.0 | 2.5 ± 1.8 | .248 |
Values indicate mean ± standard error.
BCS, board-certified spine; NBCS, non-board-certified spine; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; Δ, change from preoperative to postoperative values; OD, open door; DD, double door; SL, selective laminectomy.
Discussion
This retrospective multicenter study is the first to assess the impact of posterior decompression performed by inexperienced spine surgeons on surgical outcomes in patients with cervical OPLL, and our study has the largest sample size to date. There was no discernible influence on surgical outcomes, as evaluated by changes in the rate of perioperative complications, postoperative C2-7 angle, cervical ROM, JOA scores, and VAS for the neck. Additionally, under predominant supervision by experienced surgeons, NBCS surgeons can achieve results comparable to those of BCS surgeons. These findings strongly indicate that posterior decompression surgery for cervical OPLL is equally safe and effective, whether conducted by a BCS or NBCS surgeon, and have significant implications for research aiming to examine the viability of posterior decompression for patients with cervical OPLL.
Typically, the selection of surgical procedure for cervical spine is left to the discretion of institutions, and each institution is unlikely to use the several techniques based on pathophysiology. The current ratio of OD, DD, or SL is considered to reflect the actual prevalence of laminoplasty techniques in Japan.4-7 However, to date, there are no reports that have clarified the prevalence rate of each technique. For cervical OPLL, past comparisons of clinical outcomes between OD and DD have consistently shown similar postoperative JOA scores and recovery rates.30,32 In addition to evaluating neurological function, a recent meta-analysis of postoperative complications and radiographic parameters found no advantage of one technique over the other. 1 In the present study, OD was the most frequent procedure of surgical decompression for cervical OPLL, followed by DD and SL, which did not vary significantly between the BCS and NBCS groups. Therefore, our study demonstrates that neurological recovery and complication rates were favorable, whether the surgery was performed by a BCS or an NBCS surgeon, irrespective of the variance in surgical technique for posterior decompression. Although additional studies are necessary to compare SL outcomes with those from other procedures, the methodological differences did not impact the surgical outcomes or complications in this study.
Lordosis of cervical sagittal alignment and ROM are known to reduce after posterior decompression surgery.30-32 Similar results were obtained in this study. However, the reductions in angles were less than 5 to 7°, and patients showed significant neurological recovery by the time of the final follow-up, irrespective of the surgical procedures. Of particular importance, there were no statistically significant differences between the BCS and NBCS groups regarding postoperative changes in cervical alignment or ROM, suggesting that posterior decompression performed by inexperienced spine surgeons has a comparable effect on dynamics of cervical spine compared to when performed by more experienced spine surgeons. Therefore, despite the postoperative reduction in cervical lordotic alignment or ROM, posterior decompression remains a useful surgical procedure for cervical OPLL whether the primary surgeon is a BCS or an NBCS.
Reviewing the literature on posterior decompression for cervical OPLL, long-term outcomes for several surgical procedures are generally favorable, although late neurological deterioration can sometimes occur.1,4,30 Notably, marked preoperative kyphosis of the cervical spine and severe (>60%) compromise of the spinal canal by OPLL seem to be limiting factors for the indication of posterior decompression.33,34 To address the aforementioned limitations, posterior decompression with spinal instrumentation is utilized in the treatment of cervical OPLL cases with these characteristics. However, there is controversial whether to adopt posterior decompression with or without spinal fusion for cervical OPLL. Recently, some reports suggested that the participation of junior surgeons increases the risks of displaced pedicle screws and insufficient correction of scoliosis.10,11,13,14 Additionally, Lee et al 12 found that the involvement of a resident in posterior cervical fusion surgery was a significant predictor for blood transfusion, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Unfortunately, our evaluation in this study was focused solely on the clinical outcomes after posterior decompression and lacked control groups of patients who underwent posterior decompression with spinal fusion. Therefore, a prospective study comparing the outcomes of posterior decompression with or without spinal fusion for cervical OPLL, performed by BCS or NBCS surgeons, should be considered in the future.
When assessing the outcomes of operations conducted by NBCS surgeons, it is crucial to consider whether an experienced senior surgeon participated in the operation and directly instructed the less experienced surgeon. In our previous report on posterior decompression surgeries for patients with CSM, BCS surgeons attended approximately 77% of the operations in which an NBCS surgeon was the primary operator. The postoperative functional outcomes and complication rates were comparable in operations performed by NBCS surgeons with or without supervision by a BCS surgeon. 27 In this study, the subjects were patients with cervical OPLL, and BCS surgeons participated as assistants in approximately 73% of posterior decompression surgeries performed by NBCS surgeons, yielding results similar to those observed for CSM, as described above. Because an NBCS surgeon is anticipated to possess a certain level of surgical experience before conducting operations without the supervision of a BCS surgeon, it is suggested that the surgical outcomes in the NBCS group was comparable whether a BCS instructor was present or not. These results indicate that posterior decompression surgery for cervical spine can be effective even when performed by inexperienced surgeons if supervised by an experienced surgeon.
Our study had several notable limitations. First, it adopted a retrospective methodology, inherently diminishing the level of evidentiary support. Second, there was no standardized educational protocol system for residents or fellows among the various institutions, and decisions regarding surgical technique and the number of decompression levels were made at the discretion and preference of the surgeons. Third, the postoperative follow-up period in this study was relatively brief for a comprehensive investigation of postoperative radiographical complication development and long-term clinical outcomes. Consequently, future assessments with a more extended observation period are imperative to validate the posterior decompression surgery for cervical OPLL. Finally, postoperative rehabilitation for patients with cervical OPLL was not consistently defined and likely varied among institutions. Despite these limitations, our study provides valuable insights into the absence of a significant difference in surgical outcomes, such as functional recovery, complication rates, and cervical dynamics between the BCS and NBCS groups. The significance of our study is underscored by the unprecedented analyses that specifically evaluated the outcomes of posterior decompression surgery for cervical OPLL when performed by BCS or NBCS surgeons.
Conclusion
The present study explored the influence of surgeon experience on treatment outcomes for cervical OPLL following posterior decompression surgery. In this investigation, surgical duration, the rate of perioperative complications, postoperative clinical outcomes, and changes in cervical dynamics on radiographs were comparable in the BCS and NBCS groups. These findings suggest that posterior decompression surgery for cervical OPLL is a safe and effective technique, even when performed by junior surgeons under the supervision of experienced spine surgeons.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Toshiki Okubo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0912-7422
Narihito Nagoshi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8267-5789
Ryoma Aoyama https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1607-359X
Kazuki Takeda https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3857-4985
Kota Watanabe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4830-4690
Ken Ishii https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0094-7918
References
- 1.Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y. Surgical treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and its outcomes: posterior surgery by laminoplasty. Spine. 2012;37(5):E303-E308. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318239cca0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Matsunaga S, Sakou T. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine: etiology and natural history. Spine. 2012;37(5):E309-E314. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318241ad33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.An HS, Al-Shihabi L, Kurd M. Surgical treatment for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(7):420-429. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-22-07-420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine. 1981;6(4):354-364. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Seichi A, Takeshita K, Ohishi I, et al. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Spine. 2001;26(5):479-487. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Shiraishi T. A new technique for exposure of the cervical spine laminae. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(1 suppl):122-126. doi: 10.3171/spi.2002.96.1.0122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shiraishi T, Kato M, Yato Y, et al. New techniques for exposure of posterior cervical spine through intermuscular planes and their surgical application. Spine. 2012;37(5):E286-E296. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318239cc7e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Edelstein AI, Lovecchio FC, Saha S, Hsu WK, Kim JYS. Impact of resident involvement on orthopedic surgery outcomes: an analysis of 30,628 patients from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(15):e131. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Schoenfeld AJ, Serrano JA, Waterman BR, Bader JO, Belmont PJ. The impact of resident involvement on post-operative morbidity and mortality following orthopedic procedures: a study of 43,343 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(11):1483-1491. doi: 10.1007/s00402-013-1841-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Heffernan MJ, Seehausen DA, Andras LM, Skaggs DL. Comparison of outcomes after posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic and neuromuscular scoliosis: does the surgical first assistant’s level of training matter? Spine. 2014;39(8):648-655. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Auerbach JD, Lonner BS, Antonacci MD, Kean KE. Perioperative outcomes and complications related to teaching residents and fellows in scoliosis surgery. Spine. 2008;33(10):1113-1118. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816f69cf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lee NJ, Kothari P, Kim C, et al. The impact of resident involvement in elective posterior cervical fusion. Spine. 2018;43(5):316-323. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gonzalvo A, Fitt G, Liew S, et al. The learning curve of pedicle screw placement: how many screws are enough? Spine. 2009;34:E761-E765. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b2f928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Schupper AJ, Neifert SN, Martini ML, Gal JS, Yuk FJ, Caridi JM. Surgeon experience influences patient characteristics and outcomes in spine deformity surgery. Spine Deform. 2020;9(2):341-348. doi: 10.1007/s43390-020-00227-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Schoenfeld AJ, Carey PA, Cleveland AW, 3rd, Bader JO, Bono CM. Patient factors, comorbidities, and surgical characteristics that increase mortality and complication risk after spinal arthrodesis: a prognostic study based on 5887 patients. Spine J. 2013;13(10):1171-1179. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Divi SN, Goyal DKC, Galetta MS, et al. Are patient outcomes affected by the presence of a fellow or resident in lumbar decompression surgery? Spine. 2021;46(1):35-40. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Divi SN, Goyal DKC, Hoffman E, et al. How does the presence of a surgical trainee impact patient outcomes in lumbar fusion surgery? Internet J Spine Surg. 2021;15(3):471-477. doi: 10.14444/8033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lonner BS, Toombs CS, Hammouri Q, Terran JS, Karia RJ, Errico TJ. Effect of spine fellow training on operative outcomes, affirming graduated responsibility. Spine. 2013;38(21):1869-1874. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a3820c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Borja AJ, Ahmad HS, Ghenbot Y, et al. Resident assistant training level is not associated with patient spinal fusion outcomes. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2022;221:107388. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.McMahon P, Dididze M, Levi AD. Incidental durotomy after spinal surgery: a prospective study in an academic institution. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(1):30-36. doi: 10.3171/2012.3.SPINE11939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Stienen MN, Smoll NR, Tessitore E, Schaller K, Hildebrandt G, Gautschi OP. Surgical resident education in noninstrumented lumbar spine surgery: a prospective observational study with a 4.5-year follow-up. World Neurosurg. 2015;84:1589-1597. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.07.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yearley AG, Chalif JI, Chalif EJ, Zaidi HA. The relationship among surgeon experience, complications, and radiographic outcomes in spine deformity surgery: the experience of a junior surgeon. World Neurosurg. 2022;168:e399-e407. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.10.068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Waisbrod G, Mannion AF, Fekete TF, Kleinstueck F, Jeszenszky D, Haschtmann D. Surgical training in spine surgery: safety and patient-rated outcome. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(4):807-816. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-05883-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Imagama S, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, et al. Perioperative complications and adverse events after lumbar spinal surgery: evaluation of 1012 operations at a single center. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16(5):510-515. doi: 10.1007/s00776-011-0123-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kim RB, Garcia RM, Smith ZA, Dahdaleh NS. Impact of resident participation on outcomes after single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: an analysis of 3265 patients from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program database. Spine. 2016;41(5):E289-E296. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Stienen MN, Joswig H, Jucker D, Hildebrandt G, Schaller K, Gautschi OP. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: is surgical education safe? Acta Neurochir. 2015;157:1395-1404. doi: 10.1007/s00701-015-2396-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Nagoshi N, Iwanami A, Isogai N, et al. Does posterior cervical decompression conducted by junior surgeons affect clinical outcomes in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy? results from a multicenter study. Global Spine J. 2019;9(1):25-31. doi: 10.1177/2192568218756329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wilson JR, Patel AA, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Brodke DS, Fehlings MG. Genetics and heritability of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: results of a systematic review. Spine. 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S123-S146. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Aljuboori Z, Boakye M. The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a review article. Cureus. 2019;11(7):e5074. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Nagoshi N, Yoshii T, Egawa S, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes after open- and double-door laminoplasties for patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective multicenter study. Spine. 2021;46(23):E1238-E1245. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Nakashima H, Kato F, Yukawa Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness of open-door laminoplasty versus French-door laminoplasty in cervical compressive myelopathy. Spine. 2014;39(8):642-647. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lee DG, Lee SH, Park SJ, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes after cervical laminoplasty: open-door technique versus French door technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(6):E198-E203. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828bb296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Zhang Q, Guo R, Fang S, Tong S, Fan Y, Wang J. The clinical efficacy of laminectomy fusion fixation and posterior single open-door laminoplasty in the treatment of multilevel cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL): a retrospective study. BMC Surg. 2023;23(1):380. doi: 10.1186/s12893-023-02289-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Li C, Zhou H, Yang S, et al. Effect of K-line on posterior cervical surgery in patients with posterior longitudinal ligament ossification. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(9):2368-2377. doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06507-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]