Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction During Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Is It Necessary?

Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) is performed to treat cervical myelopathy, radiculopathy, and/or deformity. Constructs ending at the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) may lead to higher rates of adjacent segment disease, and much debate exists regarding crossing the CTJ due to paucity of data in the literature.

To determine whether extension of PCF constructs across the CTJ decreases incidence of adjacent segment disease and need for revision surgery.

A single-center retrospective case series of patients undergoing multilevel PCFs since 2011 with at least 6-mo follow-up was conducted. Outcomes were analyzed and compared based on caudal extent of instrumentation via multivariate regression.

A total of 149 patients underwent PCF, with a mean follow-up of 18.9 mo. A total of 15 (10.1%) revisions were performed, 7 (4.7%) of which were related to the construct. Five (8.3%) revisions were performed for constructs ending at C6, 1 (5.3%) at C7, 1 (2.6%) at T1, and none (0%) at T2 (P = .035). Mean procedure duration was 215 min at C6, 214 min at C7, 239 min at T1, and 343 min at T2 (P = .001). Mean estimated blood loss was 224 mL at C6, 178 mL at C7, 308 mL at T1, and 575 mL at T2 (P = .001). There was no difference in length of stay, disposition, surgical site infection, or radiographic parameters.

Extension of PCFs across the CTJ leads to lower early revision rates, but also to increased procedure duration and estimated blood loss. As such, decisions regarding caudal extent of instrumentation must weigh the risk of pseudarthrosis against that of longer procedures with higher blood loss.