Structured evaluation of C7 instrumentation omission for posterior cervicothoracic fixation

Structured evaluation of C7 instrumentation omission for posterior cervicothoracic fixation

Nicholas Dietz1, Alexander Spiessberger2

1Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA; 2Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

Correspondence to: Dr. Nicholas Dietz, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, 200 Abraham Flexner Way, Louisville, KY 40202, USA. Email:

Comment on: Patel S, Sadeh M, Tobin MK, et al. Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis. J Spine Surg 2022;8:333-42.

Submitted Sep 07, 2022. Accepted for publication Oct 09, 2022.

doi: 10.21037/jss-2022-02

While skipping C7 is often performed in cervicothoracic fusion, few studies have examined parameters and effects related to this technique. The authors build on previous work to investigate the outcomes of omitting C7 screws compared to instrumenting the C7 vertebra in posterior cervicothoracic fixation (1,2). We congratulate the authors on their retrospective study of 314 patients in which they compare 19 patients with C7 fixation to 295 patients without C7 instrumentation with 1-year follow up (2). Comprehensive comparison of complications, operation time, blood loss, fusions rate and long-term radiographic outcome were reviewed. The authors discovered that omission of the C7 level in cervicothoracic constructs resulted in profound reduction in estimated blood loss (EBL) of over 350 mL. Operative time was similar between groups and complications were insignificant in both groups. Radiographic analysis revealed that patients who received C7 bridge experienced increased postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (29.3±13.1 vs. 20.2±3.1 mm; P=0.008), but there was no significant difference between groups in correction of SVA, T1 slope, or cervical cobb angle.

In a critical evaluation of the present study, we question the accuracy of conclusions drawn from the findings of the present analysis stemming from suboptimal study design. First, the two patient groups (n=19 vs. n=295 patients) are unevenly balanced. An imbalance of more than 1:10 is considered strong and requires statistical techniques to compensate, such as under-sampling of the majority group (3). Increasingly unbalanced study groups reduce the statistical power (4). For example, a sample ratio of 1:2 vs. 1:4 will decrease the power from 0.94 to 0.77. Assuming a difference in fusion rate between the two groups of 10%, a sample size of 398 (199 patients in each group) would be needed (5). Post hoc analysis would help determine if this unbalanced case number still allows for proper interpretation of data.

Further, there are several indications that both study groups are sufficiently heterogeneous to hinder proper comparison. For instance, a significant difference in bone-morphogenetic protein (BMP) usage was found between the patient groups (21% of the C7 fusion group vs. 30% of the C7 bridge group). Because the fusion rate was lower in patients without C7 fixation despite more frequent use of BMP is inconsistent with findings as pseudarthrosis rate in this group would be expected to be higher (6,7). The significantly elevated EBL in the group with C7 fixation raises similar concerns—perhaps outliers, differing health status, or surgical approach such as use of cages may explain this difference (8). It is not expected that routine placement of two additional screws would explain a blood loss of an additional 347 mL for single operations and similar exposure as was found. A higher percentage of complications in the C7 fusion group (10.5% vs. 6.4%) may also allude to differences in preoperative health status. Additionally, the postoperative SVA is significantly lower (20.2 vs. 29.3 mm) for the C7 fusion group when compared to the C7 bridge group, while baseline values were similar. The SVA results cannot therefore be interpreted as equal, as claimed, and shows that a difference in 15.8 mm of correction was achieved for the C7 fusion group.

We recommend similar sample sizes and detailing of preoperative baseline health characteristics and health status to fortify the study design and justify conclusions. Differences in EBL, use of BMP, and complication rate may infer altered preoperative health characteristics between groups. Although the authors show that cervicothoracic constructs with C7 instrumentation omission are safe, achieve correctional goals, and have similar long-term outcomes, study design concerns would need to be addressed to substantiate claims on blood loss and radiographically similar outcomes over time.


Funding: None.


Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Journal of Spine Surgery. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See:


  1. Tobin MK, Gragnaniello C, Sun FW, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Skipping C7 Instrumentation in Posterior Cervicothoracic Fusion. World Neurosurg 2019;130:e68-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Patel S, Sadeh M, Tobin MK, et al. Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis. J Spine Surg 2022;8:333-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Zhang X, Li R, Ritchie MD. Statistical Impact of Sample Size and Imbalance on Multivariate Analysis in silico and A Case Study in the UK Biobank. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2020;2020:1383-91. [PubMed]
  4. Brysbaert M. How Many Participants Do We Have to Include in Properly Powered Experiments? A Tutorial of Power Analysis with Reference Tables. J Cogn 2019;2:16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Hulley S. Designing Clinical Research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
  6. Hsu WK. Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Spine Surgery. JBJS Rev 2014;2:e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Dietz N, Sharma M, Kelly M, et al. Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 Use in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Comparative Analysis and Healthcare Utilization at 24 Months' Follow-up. Global Spine J 2022;12:92-101. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Hu SS. Blood loss in adult spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 2004;13:S3-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Dietz N, Spiessberger A. Structured evaluation of C7 instrumentation omission for posterior cervicothoracic fixation. J Spine Surg 2022;8(4):412-413. doi: 10.21037/jss-2022-02

Download Citation