Ventral and Ventrolateral Subaxial Decompression

Published on 02/04/2015 by admin

Filed under Neurosurgery

Last modified 02/04/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1095 times

Chapter 39 Ventral and Ventrolateral Subaxial Decompression

Ventral compression of the spinal cord or the nerve roots is the most common indication for ventral decompression. Clinical conditions such as cervical trauma with ventral disc herniation or bone fragments, acute cervical disc herniation, cervical spondylosis, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, neoplastic processes, and infection can all be successfully managed by a ventral decompressive technique. Ventrolateral decompression may be required for vertebral artery stenosis secondary to tumor, spondylosis, or compression of the cervical nerve roots. Although these decompressive measures are quite effective and generally safe, they nevertheless may be associated with a number of complications that can be quite serious and even devastating. Ventral cervical discectomy, although considered relatively safe and simple, is one of the most common procedures involved in malpractice litigation.

General Considerations

The first step for avoiding complications associated with any surgical procedure is to perform the appropriate operation on the appropriate patient. Although a detailed discussion of various indications for surgery and criteria for patient selection is beyond the scope of this chapter, the importance of correlating the clinical picture with the imaging abnormalities cannot be overemphasized. The majority of middle-aged patients will have at least some degree of degenerative changes of the cervical spine, but only a few will have symptomatic spinal cord or nerve root compression. Therefore, a careful analysis of patient history and meticulous neurologic examination are essential to accurately correlate the imaging abnormalities with the patient’s clinical picture.

The ventral approach to the cervical spine is performed through a plane between the sternocleidomastoid muscle and the carotid sheath laterally and the strap muscles and tracheoesophageal viscera medially. This approach is appropriate for ventral cervical discectomy, vertebrectomy, fusion, and instrumentation (Fig. 39-1).

The ventrolateral approach, however, is more suitable for decompression of the vertebral artery in the transverse foramen or between the foramina or spinal nerve roots outside the spinal canal. Two different techniques are described in the literature. Verbiest’s1 technique is performed through the same plane as the ventral approach. However, further exposure is performed lateral to the longus colli muscle on the ipsilateral side. This exposure allows visualization of the costotransverse lamella, which forms the roof of the foramen transversarium covering the vertebral artery. Hodgson,2 on the other hand, approached the cervical spine lateral to the sternocleidomastoid muscle and the carotid sheath. These structures, along with the musculovisceral column, are retracted medially (Fig. 39-2). The remainder of the exposure is similar to that described by Verbiest, with the exception that the longus colli muscles are retracted medially to laterally to gain access to the vertebral artery.

Essentially, the structures at risk of injury are the same with either the ventral or the ventrolateral approach. In Hodgson’s approach, the tracheoesophageal viscera and recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) are protected, whereas the nerve roots, sympathetic chain, and vertebral artery are at greater risk.

Specific Complications, Avoidance, and Management

Preoperative Period

In patients with a significant neurologic deficit, the preoperative use of corticosteroids may be considered. However, there are no convincing data in the literature to support the efficacy of the routine use of corticosteroids in patients undergoing decompressive operation.

Although hyperextension of the neck usually facilitates exposure during the operation and restores normal lordotic curvature of the cervical spine, excessive hyperextension during intubation or during the operative procedure may further narrow the spinal canal and exacerbate a preexisting neurologic deficit, especially in patients with spinal canal compromise. The amount of hyperextension that can be tolerated by the patient can be assessed in the preoperative period by placing the neck in the amount of extension anticipated during the operation or intubation. If the patient can maintain this position for 30 minutes without motor or sensory symptoms, the operation can be performed safely in that position. If, however, any symptoms are induced during the testing, the neck must be kept neutral throughout surgery and the patient should be intubated fiberoptically.

Intraoperative evoked potential monitoring can be used to identify and avoid dangerous manipulation of the neural tissue during surgery.3 However, there is currently no convincing evidence that the use of this modality improves outcome after decompressive surgery. Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) are most commonly used for this purpose. However, this type of monitoring may be associated with false-positive intraoperative SSEP changes, thus creating significant anxiety for the surgeon and possibly unnecessary anesthetic and surgical maneuvers. Motor evoked potential monitoring reflects the function of the ventral spinal cord tracts more reliably than does SSEP monitoring and may avoid some of the false-positive intraoperative changes observed with SSEP.

To facilitate identification of the lower cervical segments on the localizing radiograph, caudal traction is applied to the shoulders or arms. In this case, excessive traction should be avoided because there is potential risk for traction injury of the upper brachial plexus.

Intraoperative Period

A right-sided approach is generally recommended because it is easier for the right-handed surgeon. Some authors, however, believe that a right-sided approach is associated with higher risk of injury to the RLN, especially in the lower cervical spine. The risk, however, is low.

The risk is probably balanced by the convenience of the position for right-handed surgeons. A left-sided approach, on the other hand, carries the risk of injury to the thoracic duct during exposure of the lower cervical spine. A recent review of 328 patients who underwent ventral cervical spine fusion procedures showed no association between the side of the approach and the incidence of RLN symptoms.4

The skin incision is usually transverse and localized in a skin crease. Alternatively, a diagonal skin incision along the medial border of the sternocleidomastoid muscle may be used for multilevel disease. After the skin incision is made, the platysma muscle is dissected both rostrally and caudally. One should look for branches of the external jugular vein because these may be inadvertently transected with sharp scissors during the dissection. If identified, the blood vessels can be coagulated and sharply divided. The platysma is then incised vertically parallel to its fibers throughout the limits of the exposure to prevent undue traction.

For a ventrolateral approach, more complete exposure of the sternocleidomastoid muscle is required. During the opening of the ventral cervical fascia, the greater auricular nerve and other ventral cutaneous nerves are at risk of injury. Injury to the greater auricular nerve results in decreased sensation of the skin of the face in the area of the parotid gland. This nerve penetrates the deep fascia on the dorsal surface of the sternocleidomastoid muscle at approximately midbelly and travels rostrally on the surface of the sternocleidomastoid muscle toward the ear. The anterior cutaneous nerve, on the other hand, takes a more horizontal course across the sternocleidomastoid muscle before dividing into ascending and descending branches. The ascending branch provides cutaneous innervation of the skin overlying the mandible. Damage to this nerve can result in decreased sensation over the mandible. The key to avoiding injuries to these structures is to identify them and to be aware of their anatomic location.

During lateral retraction of the sternocleidomastoid muscle for a ventrolateral approach, the eleventh cranial nerve is also at risk of injury and must be identified. This nerve enters the sternocleidomastoid muscle two to three fingerwidths below the mastoid tip and exits the muscle obliquely, caudally passing across the posterior triangle of the neck to the ventral border of the trapezius muscle.

After the superficial cervical fascia is incised and the plane is developed between the sternocleidomastoid muscle laterally and the strap muscles medially, certain structures are at risk of injury. These include the larynx and trachea, esophagus and pharynx, laryngeal nerves, carotid artery, internal jugular vein, vagus nerve, sympathetic chain, and pleura. The complications related to these structures are discussed separately.

Injury to the Esophagus and Pharynx

Dysphagia is a common problem after ventral cervical surgery and is usually secondary to edema from retraction. This symptom usually resolves within a few days without any treatment. In certain cases, however, it may persist as long as several weeks; rarely, it may be permanent. It is more common in elderly patients and in those who had extensive mobilization of the upper esophagus or hypopharynx. In a questionnaire mailed to 497 patients who had undergone ventral cervical fusion procedures, 60% reported some dysphagia after the surgical procedure compared to 23% in the control group.5

Esophageal or pharyngeal lacerations can occur, especially in the upper cervical region where the hypopharynx is thinner, either from sharp dissection or from the teeth of self-retaining retractors. If esophageal perforation is recognized intraoperatively, it should be repaired primarily. The wound should be drained and the patient placed on nasogastric drainage for at least 7 to 10 days. Fusion in these circumstances is contraindicated. Subsequently, a swallow study with a water-soluble contrast agent should be obtained to confirm that the perforation has sealed. In the majority of cases, the injury to the esophagus is not recognized during surgery and shows symptoms later as a local infection, fistula, sepsis, or mediastinitis.6,7 The presence of crepitus or an enlarging mass in the neck or mediastinal air on a chest radiograph usually suggests the strong possibility of an esophageal perforation. Diagnosis can be confirmed with an esophagogram. However, this test may not always be positive when esophageal injury is present. Esophagoscopy or a postesophagogram CT scan may also demonstrate a perforation. Treatment of a delayed perforation consists of nasogastric drainage, antibiotics, and reexploration of the incision. If a defect is found, it should be repaired and a wound drain placed.6 To avoid this complication, the longus colli muscles should be freed enough rostrally, caudally, and laterally so that the sharp teeth of the self-retaining retractors can be placed safely under them without risk of dislodgement during the procedure (Fig. 39-3). In addition, the esophagus and other soft tissue structures should be hidden by the retractors to avoid injury by the high-speed drill during bone removal.

Occasionally, perforation of the esophagus can result from a displaced graft.8 To avoid this problem, some surgeons recommend reapproximation of the longus colli muscles over the graft. When a displaced graft perforates the esophagus, reexploration is required. Either replacement or removal of the graft may be indicated, depending on the need for the graft to maintain stability. The esophageal perforation should be repaired, if possible, and the patient treated with antibiotics and nasogastric drainage.