Anterior and Posterior Approaches for 4-Level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Low-Profile Cage Versus Cervical Pedicle Screws Fixation.

(1) Background: The choice of surgical access for 4-level degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) remains controversial, and the clinical and radiological outcomes of anterior surgery using a low-profile cage (Low-P) versus posterior surgery using cervical pedicle screw fixation (CPS) have not been compared. (2) Methods: This is a retrospective controlled study conducted between January 2019 and June 2021 of 72 patients with 4-level DCM who underwent ACDF using a low-profile cage (n = 39) or laminectomy and instrument fusion using CPS (n = 33). The minimum follow-up time was 12 months. The outcomes were C2−7Cobb angle, C2−7sagittal vertical axis (SVA) fusion rate, the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, pain visual analog scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), and complications. (3) Results: Both anterior and posterior procedures significantly improved the patients’ quality-of-life parameters. Anterior cervical convexity and SVA significantly increased in both groups, but the SVA was greater in the posterior group than in the anterior group (p < 0.001). The C2−7 Cobb angle significantly improved in both groups postoperatively, and at the final follow-up, there was a slight but nonsignificant reduction in cervical lordosis in both groups (p = 0.567). There was a longer operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and reduced mean hospital stay in the anterior group compared to the posterior group, with two cases of postoperative hematoma requiring a second operation, two cases of axial pain (AP), five cases of dysphagia, two cases of c5 palsy in the anterior group, and four cases of axial pain, and three cases of c5 palsy in the posterior group. According to Bridwell fusion grade, anterior fusion reached grade I in 28 cases (71.8%) and grade II in 10 cases (25.6%) in the anterior group, and posterior fusion reached grade I in 25 cases (75.8%) and grade II in 8 cases (24.2%) in the posterior group. (4) Conclusions: There was no difference between the anterior and posterior surgical approaches for MDCM in terms of improvement in neurological function. Posterior surgery using CPS achieved similar recovery of cervical anterior convexity as anterior surgery with a shorter operative time but was more invasive and had a greater increase in SVA. The use of Low-P in anterior surgery reduced the incidence of dysphagia and cage subsidence and was less invasive, but with a longer operative time.