OBJECTIVE Our understanding of pediatric cervical spine development remains incomplete. The purpose of this analysis was to quantitatively define cervical spine growth in a population of children with normal CT scans. METHODS A total of 1458 children older than 1 year and younger than 18 years of age who had undergone a cervical spine CT scan at the authors' institution were identified. Subjects were separated by sex and age (in years) into 34 groups. Following this assignment, subjects within each group were randomly selected for inclusion until a target of 15 subjects in each group had been measured. Linear measurements were performed on the midsagittal image of the cervical spine. Twenty-three unique measurements were obtained for each subject. RESULTS Data showed that normal vertical growth of the pediatric cervical spine continues up to 18 years of age in boys and 14 years of age in girls. Approximately 75% of the vertical growth occurs throughout the subaxial spine and 25% occurs across the craniovertebral region. The C-2 body is the largest single-segment contributor to vertical growth, but the subaxial vertebral bodies and disc spaces also contribute. Overall vertical growth of the cervical spine throughout childhood is dependent on individual vertebral body growth as well as vertical growth of the disc spaces. The majority of spinal canal diameter growth occurs by 4 years of age. CONCLUSIONS The authors' morphometric analyses establish parameters for normal pediatric cervical spine growth up to 18 years of age. These data should be considered when evaluating children for potential surgical intervention and provide a basis of comparison for studies investigating the effects of cervical spine instrumentation and fusion on subsequent growth.

No abstract

Background:The surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized.Methods:Here, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.Results:There were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY.Conclusion:PCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.

No abstract