| Literature DB >> 28264242 |
Soo-Han Kim1, Jung-Kil Lee1, Jae-Won Jang1,2, Hyun-Woong Park1, Hyuk Hur1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of patients with subaxial cervical injury who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with autologous iliac bone graft or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages using demineralized bone matrix (DBM).Entities:
Keywords: ACDF; DBM; Iliac autograft; PEEK cage; Subaxial cervical spine injury
Year: 2017 PMID: 28264242 PMCID: PMC5365290 DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2015.0203.014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Korean Neurosurg Soc ISSN: 1225-8245
Fig. 1Imaging studies of a 54-year-old man who underwent a C5–6 anterior cervical fusion using autologous iliac bone graft after subaxial injury. A: Simple cervical lateral radiograph shows C5–6 subluxation and disc space widening with spinous process fracture. B: Postoperative radiograph shows satisfactory reduction of the injured segment after C5–6 fusion with anterior plating. C: Last follow-up radiograph at 24 months after surgery shows satisfactory fusion at the C5–6 level; however, some degrees of subsidence and development of adjacent segment degeneration (yellow arrow) were observed with impingement of the plate to C4–5 disc level.
Demographic features of patients
| Group I | Group II | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | 33 | 37 |
|
| ||
| Mean age (years) | 46.0 | 48.2 |
|
| ||
| Sex (female/male) | 7/26 | 10/27 |
|
| ||
| Injured level | ||
| C3–4 | 2 | 1 |
| C4–5 | 7 | 9 |
| C5–6 | 13 | 15 |
| C6–7 | 11 | 12 |
|
| ||
| Injury mechanism | ||
| Car accident | 23 | 24 |
| Fall | 8 | 9 |
| Slipping | 2 | 4 |
|
| ||
| Mean follow-up period (months) | 28.9 | 25.4 |
Neurologic outcomes according to Frankel classification in the iliac bone graft and PEEK cage groups
| Group I (Iliac graft) | Frankel grade (Last) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | ||
| Frankel grade (preoperative) | A | 2 | ||||
| B | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| C | 2 | 5 | 3 | |||
| D | 3 | 5 | ||||
| E | 7 | |||||
PEEK: polyetheretherketone
Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck and inguinal pain
| VAS (neck pain) | VAS (inguinal pain) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative value | Final follow-up value | Immediate postoperative value | Final follow-up value | ||
| Group I (Iliac graft) | 8.6±2.6 | 2.9±1.9 | <0.001 | 7.8±3.9 | 3.2±2.8 |
| Group II (Cage) | 7.9±3.2 | 2.4±1.8 | <0.001 | None | None |
| 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.48 (overall) | |||
Values are presented as means±standard deviation
Fig. 2Imaging studies of a 47-year-old man who underwent C6–7 fusion using a synthetic cage filled with demineralized bone matrix and local osteophytes. A: Simple cervical lateral radiograph shows C6–7 subluxation and disc space widening. B: Postoperative radiograph shows satisfactory reduction of the injured segment after C6–7 fusion. C: Last follow-up radiograph at 24 months after surgery shows satisfactory fusion at the C6–7 level, without the development of subsidence and junctional problems. D: Computed tomography image shows successful filling of bony tissue within the synthetic cage.
Comparison of radiological results by cervical sagittal alignment (CSA), segmental angle (SA), and interbody height (IBH)
| Preoperative | Postoperative | Final follow-up | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA (Group I) | 6.7±7.7 | −3.6±6.6 | 0.6±7.7 | <0.001 |
| 0.026 | ||||
|
| ||||
| SA (Group II) | 5.7±8.1 | −5.9±4.7 | −4.8±4.1 | <0.001 |
| >0.05 | ||||
|
| ||||
| >0.05 | >0.05 | 0.018 | ||
|
| ||||
| CSA (Group I) | −6.7±14.9 | −11.7±11.4 | −10.1±9.1 | 0.013 |
| >0.05 | ||||
|
| ||||
| CSA (Group II) | −8.7±10.1 | −13.9±12.0 | −15.2±12.9 | 0.005 |
| >0.05 | ||||
|
| ||||
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | ||
|
| ||||
| IBH (Group I) | 36.6±4.7 | 40.4±5.2 | 37.5±2.8 | <0.029 |
| 0.018 | ||||
|
| ||||
| IBH (Group II) | 36.4±3.0 | 41.3±3.8 | 40.4±3.3 | <0.008 |
| >0.05 | ||||
|
| ||||
| >0.05 | >0.05 | 0.037 | ||
Values are presented as means±standard deviation.
Comparison of preoperative and postoperative.
Comparison of postoperative and last follow-up.
p-value (I): comparison of SA, CSA, and IBH within the group. p-value (II): comparison of SA between two groups. p-value (III): comparison of CSA between two groups. p-value (IV): comparison of IBH between two groups
Development of radiologic and clinical adjacent segment degeneration (ASD)
| Development of ASD | ||
|---|---|---|
| Radiologic ASD | Symptomatic ASD | |
| Group I | 9 | 0 |
| Group II | 2 | 0 |
| 0.021 | ||
Graph for SA
Graph for CSA
Graph for IBH