Simultaneous Versus Staged Surgery For Double Crush Syndrome Of Cervical Radiculopathy And Peripheral Nerve Compression At The Wrist
Vadim A Byvaltsev,Andrei A Kalinin,Roman A Polkin,Alexander V Kuharev,Marat S Almatov,Marat A Aliyev,K Daniel Riew,Vadim A. Byvaltsev,Andrei A. Kalinin,Roman A. Polkin,Alexander V. Kuharev,Marat S. Almatov,Marat A. Aliyev,K. Daniel Riew
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000004950
IF: 3.241
2024-02-02
Spine
Abstract:Study Design. Retrospective single-center study. Objectives. to evaluate the results of surgical treatment in patients with double crush syndrome associated with cervical radiculopathy and upper limb peripheral nerve compression after staged and simultaneous operations. Summary of Background Data. Currently, choosing the optimal diagnostic and therapeutic modalities in treating patients with double crush syndrome remains unresolved. Methods. The study included 79 patients with double crush syndrome (cervical radiculopathy and syndrome of Guyon’s canal or Carpal tunnel syndrome). Two independent groups were studied: In the Staged Group (n=35), we performed a cervical decompression with stabilization and peripheral nerve decompression at separate days due to ongoing clinical symptoms (average interval between interventions being 22 (18;26) days). In the Simultaneous Group (n=33), we performed both the cervical spine surgery, as well as the peripheral nerve procedures in one surgical session. Total operative time, estimate blood loss, length of hospitalization, complications and clinical data (NDI score, SF-36, VAS neck pain score, VAS arm pain score, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Macnab scale) were compared. We used the Mann-Whitney (MW) test for intergroup comparisons, Wilcoxon criterion for dependent samples, and Fisher’s exact test for binomial parameters. Results. There was a significantly lower operative time, duration of inpatient treatment and temporary disability in the Simultaneous Group ( P =0.01, P =0.04 and P =0.006 respectively). Comparative analysis did not reveal significant intergroup differences using NDI, VAS and DASH ( P >0.05), whereas, at discharge, significantly better clinical parameters were appreciated for the Simultaneous Group using SF-36 and Macnab scores ( P =0.04 and P =0.03, respectively). At Last Follow-up, an intra-group analysis revealed comparable clinical effectiveness between the two approaches ( P >0.05). Conclusion. Comparison of the effectiveness of simultaneous and staged surgery revealed comparable long-term clinical outcomes. However, simultaneous surgery conveys clinically important advantages in terms of surgical time, anesthesia duration, length of hospitalization and patient disability. Level of Evidence. 3
clinical neurology,orthopedics