Literature DB >> 20562731

Non-fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and implantation of empty polyetheretherketone cages.

Ioannis Pechlivanis1, Theresa Thuring, Christopher Brenke, Marcel Seiz, Claudius Thome, Martin Barth, Albrecht Harders, Kirsten Schmieder.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective analysis.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the radiographically detectable bony fusion in patients with anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-cage implantation without additional filling. Furthermore, clinical data of patients with and without fusion were compared. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PEEK-cage implantation is performed in cervical spinal surgery because of its benefits. However, fusion rates without filling of the cage have not been reported.
METHODS: Patients selected for ACD with PEEK-cage implantation prospectively underwent plain radiography in anterior-posterior and lateral projections during the postoperative hospital stay and at follow-up. Furthermore, clinical status was evaluated using the Odom scale, the Short Form-36, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for arm and neck pain, and the cervical Oswestry score. Fusion status, migration, and subsidence of the PEEK cage were evaluated on the basis of the lateral radiographs. Fusion was confirmed by presence of continuous trabecular bone bridges in the disc space. To exclude an influence of the cage on the evaluation of fusion rates, fusion was evaluated in analogous fashion retrospectively in a control group.
RESULTS: A total of 52 patients underwent ACD and interbody fusion. One-level surgery was performed in 44 patients and 2-level surgery in 8 patients. A total of 60 ACD and interbody fusions with a PEEK cage were analyzed. A majority of operations were at the C5/6 level (40 patients, 77%). Cage height was 4 mm in 32 cases, 5 mm in 23 cases, and 6 mm in 5 cases. Bony fusion was present at 43 treated levels (71.7%), whereas at 17 levels (28.3%) no fusion was found. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the fusion and non-fusion groups regarding time to follow-up, implanted cage height. Short Form-36, cervical Oswestry score, VAS arm and neck, or Odom criteria. In the control group, ACD was performed in 29 patients (42 levels; 18 one-level and 12 two-level operations). Bony fusion was present at 30 levels (71.4%), whereas non-fusion was present at 12 treated levels (28.6%). Statistically analysis revealed no significant difference between the study group and the control group regarding time to follow-up or fusion rates.
CONCLUSION: Implantation of empty PEEK cages after ACD shows an unexpectedly low rate effusion according to radiologic criteria, although no statistically significant difference could be observed clinically.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20562731     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cbf870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  18 in total

1.  Evaluation of bony fusion after anterior cervical discectomy: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  I Noordhoek; M T Koning; C L A Vleggeert-Lankamp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-11-17       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Implantation of an empty polyetheretherketone cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomised controlled study with 2 years follow-up.

Authors:  Shang-Wen Feng; Ming-Chau Chang; Po-Hsin Chou; Hsi-Hsien Lin; Shih-Tien Wang; Chien-Lin Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  A prospective randomized comparison of PEEK cage containing calcium sulphate or demineralized bone matrix with autograft in anterior cervical interbody fusion.

Authors:  Youzhuan Xie; Hua Li; Junjie Yuan; Lingjie Fu; Jianwei Yang; Pu Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-11-30       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Porous silicon nitride spacers versus PEEK cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical and radiological results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mark P Arts; Jasper F C Wolfs; Terry P Corbin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Comparison of Operating Time between Stand-alone Cage and a Standard Method for a Single Level Cervical Disc Disease.

Authors:  Chang Hyoun Kim; Chi Heon Kim; Chun Kee Chung; Tae-Ahn Jahng
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2012-03-31

6.  Anterior approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: which? When? How?

Authors:  Sanford E Emery
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages.

Authors:  Mario Cabraja; Soner Oezdemir; Daniel Koeppen; Stefan Kroppenstedt
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion using PEEK anatomical cervical cage and allograft bone.

Authors:  C Faldini; M Chehrassan; M T Miscione; F Acri; M d'Amato; C Pungetti; D Luciani; S Giannini
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2011-11-17

9.  Is the radiographic subsidence of stand-alone cages associated with adverse clinical outcomes after cervical spine fusion? An observational cohort study with 2-year follow-up outcome scoring.

Authors:  Dirk Zajonz; Anne-Catherine Franke; Nicolas von der Höh; Anna Voelker; Michael Moche; Jens Gulow; Christoph-Eckhard Heyde
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2014-11-07

10.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using a stand-alone polyetheretherketone cage packed with local autobone : assessment of bone fusion and subsidence.

Authors:  Jeong-Ill Park; Dae-Chul Cho; Kyoung-Tae Kim; Joo-Kyung Sung
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2013-09-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.