Literature DB >> 34523280

[Effectiveness of three-dimensional printing artificial vertebral body and interbody fusion Cage in anterior cervical surgery].

Zhiqiang Wang1, Haoyu Feng1, Xun Ma1, Chen Chen1, Chen Deng1, Lin Sun1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of three-dimensional (3D) printing artificial vertebral body and interbody fusion Cage in anterior cervical disectomy and fusion (ACCF) combined with anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACDF).
METHODS: The clinical data of 29 patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy who underwent ACCF combined with ACDF between May 2018 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 13 patients were treated with 3D printing artificial vertebral body and 3D printing Cage as 3D printing group and 16 patients with ordinary titanium mesh Cage (TMC) and Cage as TMC group. There was no significant difference in gender, age, surgical segment, Nurick grade, disease duration, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Cobb angle of fusion segment between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization stay, complications, and implant fusion at last follow-up were recorded and compared between the two groups; JOA score was used to evaluate neurological function before operation, immediately after operation, at 6 months after operation, and at last follow-up; VAS score was used to evaluate upper limb and neck pain. Cobb angle of fusion segment was measured and the difference between the last follow-up and the immediate after operation was calculated. The height of the anterior border (HAB) and the height of the posterior border (HPB) were measured immediately after operation, at 6 months after operation, and at last follow-up, and the subsidence of implant was calculated.
RESULTS: The operation time of 3D printing group was significantly less than that of TMC group ( t=3.336, P=0.002); there was no significant difference in hospitalization stay and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-19 months (mean, 16 months). There was no obvious complication in both groups. There were significant differences in JOA score, VAS score, and Cobb angle at each time point between the two groups ( P<0.05). There was an interaction between time and group in the JOA score ( F=3.705, P=0.025). With time, the increase in JOA score was different between the 3D printing group and the TMC group, and the increase in the 3D printing group was greater. There was no interaction between time and group in the VAS score ( F=3.038, P=0.065), and there was no significant difference in the score at each time point between the two groups ( F=0.173, P=0.681). The time of the Cobb angle interacted with the group ( F=15.581, P=0.000). With time, the Cobb angle of the 3D printing group and the TMC group changed differently. Among them, the 3D printing group increased more and the TMC group decreased more. At last follow-up, there was no significant difference in the improvement rate of JOA score between the two groups ( t=0.681, P=0.502), but the Cobb angle difference of the 3D printing group was significantly smaller than that of the TMC group ( t=5.754, P=0.000). At last follow-up, the implant fusion rate of the 3D printing group and TMC group were 92.3% (12/13) and 87.5% (14/16), respectively, and the difference was not significant ( P=1.000). The incidence of implant settlement in the 3D printing group and TMC group at 6 months after operation was 15.4% (2/13) and 18.8% (3/16), respectively, and at last follow-up were 30.8% (4/13) and 56.3% (9/16), respectively, the differences were not significant ( P=1.000; P=0.264). The difference of HAB and the difference of HPB in the 3D printing group at 6 months after operation and last follow-up were significantly lower than those in the TMC group ( P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: For patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing ACCF combined with ACDF, compared with TMC and Cage, 3D printing artificial vertebrae body and 3D printing Cage have the advantages of shorter operation time, better reduction of height loss of fusion vertebral body, and maintenance of cervical physiological curvature, the early effectiveness is better.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Three-dimensional printing; anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion; anterior cervical disectomy and fusion; bone graft fusion; multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy; titanium mesh Cage

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34523280      PMCID: PMC8444133          DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202103003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 1002-1892


  12 in total

Review 1.  3-dimensional printing for anterior cervical surgery: a review.

Authors:  Wen Jie Choy; William C H Parr; Kevin Phan; William R Walsh; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12

Review 2.  3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices.

Authors:  Joshua L Burnard; William C H Parr; Wen Jie Choy; William R Walsh; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Comparison of Three Reconstructive Techniques in the Surgical Management of Patients With Four-Level Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Zhonghai Li; Huadong Wang; Jiaguang Tang; Dongfeng Ren; Li Li; Shuxun Hou; Hailong Zhang; Tiesheng Hou
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Enhancement of stability following anterior cervical corpectomy: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Kern Singh; Alexander R Vaccaro; Jesse Kim; Eric P Lorenz; Tae-Hong Lim; Howard S An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Comparative analysis of three types of titanium mesh cages for anterior cervical single-level corpectomy and fusion in term of postoperative subsidence.

Authors:  Hangyu Ji; Xinhui Xie; Suyang Zhuang; Cong Zhang; Linghan Xie; Xiaotao Wu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 4.060

6.  Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning.

Authors:  Erol Gercek; Vincent Arlet; Josee Delisle; Dante Marchesi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-06-21       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Porous titanium cervical interbody fusion device in the treatment of degenerative cervical radiculopathy; 1-year results of a prospective controlled trial.

Authors:  Mark Arts; Bart Torensma; Jasper Wolfs
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Perioperative Outcomes in 17,947 Patients Undergoing 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus 1-Level Anterior Cervical Corpectomy for Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Conditions: A Propensity Score Matched National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis.

Authors:  Anoop R Galivanche; Raj Gala; Preetpaul S Bagi; Arianne J Boylan; Christopher M Dussik; Pedro D Coutinho; Jonathan N Grauer; Arya G Varthi
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2020-12-31

Review 9.  Current Diagnosis and Management of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Authors:  Joshua Bakhsheshian; Vivek A Mehta; John C Liu
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-05-31

Review 10.  Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Titanium Mesh Cages for Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Pathologies: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Zhijing Wen; Teng Lu; Yibin Wang; Hui Liang; Zhengchao Gao; Xijing He
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-09-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.