Literature DB >> 17342510

Autograft versus interbody fusion cage without plate fixation in the cervical spine: a randomized clinical study using radiostereometry.

Bengt I Lind1, Björn Zoega, Hans Rosén.   

Abstract

A primary object with a fusion cage is avoidance of graft collapse with subsequent subsidence and malalignment of the cervical spine that is observed after bone grafting alone. No randomized studies exist that demonstrate the difference between these two methods in terms of graft subsidence and angulation of the fused segment. The size of the study population was calculated to be 24 patients to reach a significant difference at the 95% CI level. Patients with one-level cervical radiculopathy scheduled for surgery were randomized to anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with autograft or to fusion cage, both without plate fixation. Tantalum markers were inserted in the two adjacent vertebrae at the end of surgery. Radiostereometry was performed immediately postoperatively and at regular intervals for 2 years. Questionnaires were used to evaluate the clinical outcome and an unbiased observer graded the outcome after 2 years. No significant differences were found between the two methods after 2 years in regard of narrowing of the disc space (mean 1.7 and 1.4 mm, respectively) or deformation of the fused segment into flexion (mean 7.7 degrees and 4.6 degrees , respectively). Patients in the cage group had a significantly better clinical outcome. The findings of subsidence and flexion deformation of the fused segment after 2 years seem to be of no clinical importance after one-level cervical disc surgery. However, in multi-level surgery using the same methods, an additive effect of the deformations of the fused segments may affect the clinical outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17342510      PMCID: PMC2200784          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0337-7

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


  34 in total

1.  Spinal angulation after anterior discectomy and graftless fusion.

Authors:  N G Dan
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.961

2.  Biomechanical comparison of cervical interbody cage versus structural bone graft.

Authors:  David L Greene; Neil R Crawford; Robert H Chamberlain; Sung Chan Park; Dennis Crandall
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 3.  Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. A method for the study of the kinematics of the skeletal system.

Authors:  G Selvik
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand Suppl       Date:  1989

4.  A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Mechanical testing.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee; J M Geiger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Anterior cervical fusion: outcome analysis of patients fused with and without anterior cervical plates.

Authors:  P J Connolly; S I Esses; J P Kostuik
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1996-06

6.  Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis.

Authors:  R C Bishop; K A Moore; M N Hadley
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 5.115

7.  An experimental study of the immediate load bearing capacity of three surgical constructions for anterior spine fusions.

Authors:  A A White; J Jupiter; W O Southwick; M M Panjabi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1973 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients.

Authors:  H H Bohlman; S E Emery; D B Goodfellow; P K Jones
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Mobility provocation radiostereometry in anterior cervical spine fusions.

Authors:  Björn Zoëga; Johan Kärrholm; Bengt Lind
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-10-25       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant.

Authors:  G W Bagby
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  11 in total

1.  [Anterior cervical fusion in the lower cervical spine. Locked vs nonlocked screw plate, pure cancellous bone vs tricortical strut].

Authors:  L Sándor; P Barzo; A Kuncz; P Elek
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Pain from donor site after anterior cervical fusion with bone graft: a prospective randomized study with 12 months of follow-up.

Authors:  M Skeppholm; C Olerud
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy fusion and cervical corpectomy fusion using titanium cages for reconstruction: analysis of outcome and long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Juan S Uribe; Jaypal Reddy Sangala; Edward A M Duckworth; Fernando L Vale
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-12       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Anterior cervical fusion with interbody cage containing beta-tricalcium phosphate augmented with plate fixation: a prospective randomized study with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Li-Yang Dai; Lei-Sheng Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-02-27       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A single center retrospective clinical evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion comparing allograft spacers to silicon nitride cages.

Authors:  Micah W Smith; Daniel R Romano; Bryan J McEntire; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

6.  Is "mini-invasive" technique for iliac crest harvesting an alternative to cervical cage implant? An overview of a large personal experience.

Authors:  Aldo Spallone; Chiara Izzo; Stefania Galassi; Massimiliano Visocchi
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2013-12-17

7.  Clinical and radiological evaluation of Trabecular Metal and the Smith-Robinson technique in anterior cervical fusion for degenerative disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Håkan Löfgren; M Engquist; P Hoffmann; B Sigstedt; L Vavruch
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Iliac crest autograft versus alternative constructs for anterior cervical spine surgery: Pros, cons, and costs.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2012-07-17

9.  Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using a Double Cylindrical Cage versus an Anterior Cervical Plating System with Iliac Crest Autografts for the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease.

Authors:  Seong Joon Kim; Sang Don Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2014-01-31

10.  Stand-Alone Cages for Anterior Cervical Fusion: Are There No Problems?

Authors:  Sang Youp Han; Hyun Woo Kim; Cheol Young Lee; Hong Rye Kim; Dong Ho Park
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2016-03-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.