Multilevel Cervical Corpectomy in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Cervical Myelopathy and Osteoporosis
1
Final Year Junior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India
2
Final Year Junior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India.
3
Senior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India
4
Second Year Junior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India
5
Professor, Department of Orthopedics, D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India
Abstract
Background: Corpectomy is a surgical intervention that involves resecting part or all of a vertebral body to alleviate pressure on neural structures. This procedure is typically indicated in patients with degenerative spinal disorders, neoplasms, or trauma. We report a rare case involving a male patient who underwent a C4–C5 corpectomy and cervical stabilization using a C5–C6 3D expandable cage. The patient suffered from extensive cervical spine degeneration secondary to rheumatoid arthritis, accompanied by cervical myelopathy and osteoporosis. Imaging revealed critical spinal canal stenosis, highlighting a high risk for tetraplegia. This report illustrates a surgical approach that effectively managed the pathological features, emphasizing the importance of individualized surgical planning and interdisciplinary collaboration for optimal outcomes.
CASE DESCRIPTION
A 62-year-old male with a 10-year history of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis presented with progressive symptoms of cervical myelopathy, including muscle weakness, imbalance, and limited ambulation. Preoperative imaging demonstrated significant vertebral body deformity, critical spinal canal stenosis, and altered spinal cord signals, particularly at C4. The patient’s physical capacity was severely limited, with assistance required for standing and ambulation. Surgical intervention included a C4–C5 corpectomy and C3-C6 fixation via anterior approach, decompression, and placement of an expandable C3-C6 Harms vertebral cage and anterior cervical plate. No subluxation in the posterior elements was noted, eliminating the need for a posterior approach. Postoperatively, the patient showed improved mobility and pain levels and was transferred to a rehabilitation center for further therapy. CT scans at 3 months post-op confirmed the stability of the surgical construct and effective spinal decompression.
DISCUSSION
Anterior cervical corpectomy, especially using expandable implants, has become a standard approach for treating multilevel cervical spine pathologies. Expandable cages allow better anatomical fit and restoration of vertebral height while reducing operative time and complications. In this patient, the chosen implant provided optimal stability and neural decompression, critical given his compromised bone quality from RA and osteoporosis. The decision against posterior stabilization was based on preoperative imaging and lack of facet subluxation. Literature supports the efficacy and safety of expandable implants in such settings, though long-term outcomes require further study. This case aligns with other reports indicating significant clinical improvements following such interventions.
CONCLUSION
Multilevel cervical corpectomy using an expandable prosthesis and anterior plating offers a viable surgical solution for managing complex spinal pathologies involving degenerative changes, RA, and osteoporosis. This case underscores the value of patient-specific surgical planning, comprehensive preoperative imaging, and postoperative rehabilitation. Continued long-term follow-up is necessary to evaluate implant durability and overall patient outcomes, especially in populations with systemic comorbidities like RA and osteoporosis.
REFERENCES
1. Zhang, A.S.; Myers, C.; McDonald, C.L.; Alsoof, D.; Anderson, G.; Daniels, A.H. Cervical Myelopathy: Diagnosis, Contemporary Treatment, and Outcomes. Am. J. Med. 2022, 135, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Foreman, M.; Foster, D.; Gillam, W.; Ciesla, C.; Lamprecht, C.; Lucke-Wold, B. Management Considerations for Cervical Corpectomy: Updated Indications and Future Directions. Life 2024, 14, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Louie, P.K.; Nemani, V.M.; Leveque, J.A. Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Case Presentation with Surgical Technique Demonstration and Review of Literature. Clin. Spine Surg. 2022, 35, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Tohamy, M.H.; Osterhoff, G.; Abdelgawaad, A.S.; Ezzati, A.; Heyde, C.E. Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion with Stand-Alone Cages in Patients with Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease Is Safe. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2022, 23, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Tatter, C.; Persson, O.; Burström, G.; Edström, E.; Elmi-Terander, A. Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Degenerative and Traumatic Spine Disorders, Single-Center Experience of a Case Series of 119 Patients. Oper. Neurosurg. 2020, 20, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Luo, J.; Cao, K.; Huang, S.; Li, L.; Yu, T.; Cao, C.; Zhong, R.; Gong, M.; Zhou, Z.; Zou, X. Comparison of Anterior Approach versus Posterior Approach for the Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Eur. Spine J. 2015, 24, 1621–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Al-Daoseri, H.A.; Mohammed Saeed, M.A.; Ahmed, R.A. Prevalence of Cervical Spine Instability among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in South Iraq. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 11, 876–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Kirkham-Wilson, F.; Dennison, E. Osteoporosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Review of Current Understanding and Practice. Br. J. Hosp. Med. 2024, 85, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Tanaka, Y. Managing Osteoporosis and Joint Damage in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Roux, C. Osteoporosis in Inflammatory Joint Diseases. Osteoporos. Int. 2011, 22, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]