Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective case series reveals hyoid resection improves radiologic outcomes in cervical ACDF, highlighting its potential benefits over traditional methods.
Abstract Purpose: To describe a partial hyoid resection (PHR)-assisted anterior approach for upper cervical Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and evaluate its feasibility and early outcomes compared to the conventional approach without hyoid resection. Methods: This retrospective case series included eight patients who underwent single-level ACDF at C3–4 using an anterior retropharyngeal approach by a single surgeon. Four patients received a partial hyoid resection (PHR group) to enhance cephalad exposure, while four underwent the standard approach without resection (non-PHR group). Outcome measures included operative time, radiologic outcomes (prevertebral soft tissue swelling, cage position and rotation, plate position and rotation), and perioperative complications. Results:The PHR group had a longer mean operative time compared to the non-PHR group (126.3 vs. 98.7 minutes). Radiologic analysis showed slightly increased prevertebral soft tissue swelling in the PHR group (35.5 mm vs. 24.0 mm). However, implant positioning was more accurate in the PHR group, evidenced by reduced cage offset (0.83 mm vs. 1.30 mm), cage rotation (5.6° vs. 11.2°), and plate rotation (4.5° vs. 7.8°). Clinically, the PHR group experienced only one minor complication (distal screw loosening), whereas the non-PHR group had more significant complications including one pharyngeal tear and one superior laryngeal nerve injury. Conclusion:Partial hyoid resection appears feasible and safe for enhancing exposure in high cervical ACDF. In this series, it was associated with more favorable implant alignment and fewer traction-related events, suggesting potential advantages in select cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: