Literature DB >> 19769501

Radiographic assessment of cervical subaxial fusion.

Michael G Kaiser1, Praveen V Mummaneni, Paul G Matz, Paul A Anderson, Michael W Groff, Robert F Heary, Langston T Holly, Timothy C Ryken, Tanvir F Choudhri, Edward J Vresilovic, Daniel K Resnick.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify the best methodology for radiographic assessment of cervical subaxial fusion.
METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical fusion. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
RESULTS: Pseudarthrosis is best assessed through the absence of motion detected between the spinous processes on dynamic radiographs (Class II). The measurement of interspinous distance on dynamic radiographs of >or= 2 mm is a more reliable indicator for pseudarthrosis than angular motion of 2 degrees based on Cobb angle measurements (Class II). Similarly, it is also understood that the pseudarthrosis rate will increase as the threshold for allowable motion on dynamic radiographs decreases. The combination of interspinous distance measurements and identification of bone trabeculation is unreliable when performed by the treating surgeon (Class II). Identification of bone trabeculation on static radiographs should be considered a less reliable indicator of cervical arthrodesis than dynamic films (Class III).
CONCLUSIONS: Consideration should be given to dynamic radiographs and interspinous distance when assessing for pseudarthrosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19769501     DOI: 10.3171/2009.3.SPINE08719

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  10 in total

Review 1.  Imaging of post-surgical treatment and of related complications in spinal trauma.

Authors:  F Caranci; G Leone; L Ugga; E Cesarano; R Capasso; S Schipani; A Bianco; P Fonio; F Briganti; L Brunese
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-02-06

2.  Comparison of structural allograft and traditional autograft technique in occipitocervical fusion: radiological and clinical outcomes from a single institution.

Authors:  Jakub Godzik; Vijay M Ravindra; Wilson Z Ray; Meic H Schmidt; Erica F Bisson; Andrew T Dailey
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2015-05-08

3.  PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate.

Authors:  Bartosz Godlewski; Adam Bebenek; Maciej Dominiak; Grzegorz Karpinski; Piotr Cieslik; Tomasz Pawelczyk
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 4.  Successful fusion versus pseudarthrosis after spinal instrumentation: a comprehensive imaging review.

Authors:  John C Benson; Vance T Lehman; Arjun S Sebastian; Noelle A Larson; Ahmad Nassr; Felix E Diehn; John T Wald; Naveen S Murthy
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 2.995

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.  Comparison of rhBMP-2 versus Autogenous Iliac Crest Bone Graft for 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Bingyi Tan; Haiyan Wang; Jun Dong; Zenong Yuan; Dachuan Wang; Feng Wang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-10-19

7.  The Formation of Extragraft Bone Bridging after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Shin Won Kwon; Chi Heon Kim; Chun Kee Chung; Tae Hyun Park; Su Heon Woo; Sung-Jae Lee; Seung Heon Yang
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2017-10-25

8.  Research protocol: Cervical Arthroplasty Cost Effectiveness Study (CACES): economic evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) in the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease - a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Valérie N E Schuermans; Anouk Y J M Smeets; Toon F M Boselie; Math J J M Candel; Inez Curfs; Silvia M A A Evers; Henk Van Santbrink
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 2.728

9.  Is atlantoaxial instability the cause of "high" cervical ossified posterior longitudinal ligament? Analysis on the basis of surgical treatment of seven patients.

Authors:  Atul Goel
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

Review 10.  Radiological Fusion Criteria of Postoperative Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Masahito Oshina; Yasushi Oshima; Sakae Tanaka; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-02-11
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.