Literature DB >> 17221174

Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion.

Pavel Barsa1, Petr Suchomel.   

Abstract

Fusion of cervical spine in kyphotic alignment has been proven to produce an acceleration of degenerative changes at adjacent levels. Stand-alone cages are reported to have a relatively high incidence of implant subsidence with secondary kyphotic deformity. This malalignment may theoretically lead to adjacent segment disease in the long term. The prospective study analysed possible risk factors leading to cage subsidence with resulting sagittal malalignment of cervical spine. Radiographic data of 100 consecutive patients with compressive radiculo-/myelopathy due to degenerative disc prolapse or osteophyte formation were prospectively collected in those who were treated by anterior cervical discectomy and implantation of single type interbody fusion cage. One hundred and forty four implants were inserted altogether at one or two levels as stand-alone cervical spacers without any bone graft or graft substitute. All patients underwent standard anterior cervical discectomy and the interbody implants were placed under fluoroscopy guidance. Plain radiographs were obtained on postoperative days one and three to verify position of the implant. Clinical and radiographic follow-up data were obtained at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months and than annually in outpatient clinic. Radiographs were evaluated with respect to existing subsidence of implants. Subsidence was defined as more than 2 mm reduction in segmental height due to implant migration into the adjacent end-plates. Groups of subsided and non-subsided implants were statistically compared with respect to spacer distance to the anterior rim of vertebral body, spacer versus end-plate surface ratio, amount of bone removed from adjacent vertebral bodies during decompression and pre- versus immediate postoperative intervertebral space height ratio. There were 18 (18%) patients with 19 (13.2%) subsided cages in total. No patients experienced any symptoms. At 2 years, there was no radiographic evidence of accelerated adjacent segment degeneration. All cases of subsidence occurred at the anterior portion of the implant: 17 cases into the inferior vertebra, 1 into the superior and 1 into both vertebral bodies. In most cases, the process of implant settling started during the perioperative period and its progression did not exceed three postoperative months. There was an 8.7 degrees average loss of segmental lordosis (measured by Cobb angle). Average distance of subsided intervertebral implants from anterior vertebral rim was found to be 2.59 mm, while that of non-subsided was only 0.82 mm (P < 0.001). Spacer versus end-plate surface ratio was significantly smaller in subsided implants (P < 0.001). Ratio of pre- and immediate postoperative height of the intervertebral space did not show significant difference between the two groups (i.e. subsided cages were not in overdistracted segments). Similarly, comparison of pre- and postoperative amount of bone mass in both adjacent vertebral bodies did not show a significant difference. Appropriate implant selection and placement appear to be the key factors influencing cage subsidence and secondary kyphotisation of box-shaped, stand-alone cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Mechanical support of the implant by cortical bone of the anterior osteophyte and maximal cage to end-plate surface ratio seem to be crucial in the prevention of postoperative loss of lordosis. Our results were not able to reflect the importance of end-plate integrity maintenance; the authors would, however, caution against mechanical end-plate damage. Intraoperative overdistraction was not shown to be a significant risk factor in this study. The significance of implant subsidence in acceleration of degenerative changes in adjacent segments remains to be evaluated during a longer follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17221174      PMCID: PMC2200763          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0284-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  16 in total

1.  [Stabilizing effect and sintering tendency of 3 different cages and bone cement for fusion of cervical vertebrae segments].

Authors:  H J Wilke; A Kettler; L Claes
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  [Effect of design and implantation technique on risk of progressive sintering of various cervical vertebrae cages].

Authors:  S Fürderer; F Schöllhuber; J D Rompe; P Eysel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Subsidence of stand-alone cervical carbon fiber cages.

Authors:  Ronald H M A Bartels; Roland D Donk; Ton Feuth
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.654

4.  Effect of endplate conditions and bone mineral density on the compressive strength of the graft-endplate interface in anterior cervical spine fusion.

Authors:  T H Lim; H Kwon; C H Jeon; J G Kim; M Sokolowski; R Natarajan; H S An; G B Andersson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Preliminary experience with anterior cervical microdiscectomy and interbody titanium cage fusion (Novus CT-Ti) in patients with cervical disc disease.

Authors:  G Profeta; R de Falco; G Ianniciello; L Profeta; A Cigliano; A I Raja
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  2000-05

6.  Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels.

Authors:  A Katsuura; S Hukuda; Y Saruhashi; K Mori
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages.

Authors:  F Kandziora; R Pflugmacher; J Schäfer; C Born; G Duda; N P Haas; T Mittlmeier
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Subsidence resulting from simulated postoperative neck movements: an in vitro investigation with a new cervical fusion cage.

Authors:  H J Wilke; A Kettler; C Goetz; L Claes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Sagittal alignment of cervical flexion and extension: lateral radiographic analysis.

Authors:  Toshichika Takeshima; Shohei Omokawa; Takanori Takaoka; Masafumi Araki; Yurito Ueda; Yoshinori Takakura
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  A prospective randomized comparison between the cloward procedure and a carbon fiber cage in the cervical spine: a clinical and radiologic study.

Authors:  Ludek Vavruch; Rune Hedlund; Davood Javid; Waclaw Leszniewski; Adel Shalabi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  67 in total

1.  Morphological studies of cartilage endplates in subaxial cervical region.

Authors:  Songchuan Zhao; Dingjun Hao; Yonghong Jiang; Dageng Huang; Chaoyuan Ge; Hang Feng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Comparison of anterior cervical fusion by titanium mesh cage versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide cage following single-level corpectomy.

Authors:  Xi Yang; Qi Chen; Limin Liu; Yueming Song; Qingquan Kong; Jiancheng Zeng; Youdi Xue; Chunpeng Ren
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Ranges of Cervical Intervertebral Disc Deformation During an In Vivo Dynamic Flexion-Extension of the Neck.

Authors:  Yan Yu; Haiqing Mao; Jing-Sheng Li; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Liming Cheng; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li; Thomas D Cha
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.097

4.  Sagittal geometry of the middle and lower cervical endplates.

Authors:  Hong Chen; Jian Zhong; Jixiang Tan; Dandong Wu; Dianming Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Stand-alone anchored cage versus cage with plating for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with a 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Osamu Nemoto; Akira Kitada; Satoko Naitou; Atsuko Tachibana; Yuya Ito; Akira Fujikawa
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-10-05

6.  Critical Evaluation of Biomechanical Principles and Radiographic Indicators for Fusion Assessment in a Novel Conformable Porous Mesh Implant.

Authors:  Lisa Ferrara; William Ford; Pierce D Nunley; Barbara D Boyan; Marcus B Stone
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

Review 7.  Locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Yachao Zhao; Sidong Yang; Yachong Huo; Zhaohui Li; Dalong Yang; Wenyuan Ding
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-08-08       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Cage subsidence does not, but cervical lordosis improvement does affect the long-term results of anterior cervical fusion with stand-alone cage for degenerative cervical disc disease: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Wen-Jian Wu; Lei-Sheng Jiang; Yu Liang; Li-Yang Dai
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Three- and four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a PEEK cage and plate construct.

Authors:  Kyung-Jin Song; Sun-Jung Yoon; Kwang-Bok Lee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Comparative Analysis of Interbody Cages Versus Tricortical Graft with Anterior Plate Fixation for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease.

Authors:  Pritish Singh; Ashok Kumar; Vishal Shekhawat
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-03-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.