Vertebral Body Replacement With an Anchored Expandable Titanium Cage in the Cervical Spine: A Clinical and Radiological Evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natan Yusupov ◽  
Sebastian Siller ◽  
Johann Hofereiter ◽  
Heinrich Karl Boehm ◽  
Manuel Fuetsch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Vertebral Body ◽  
Sagittal Profile ◽  
Vertebral Body Replacement ◽  
Radiological Evaluation ◽  
Titanium Cage ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Anterior Corpectomy ◽  
Expandable Titanium Cage

Abstract BACKGROUND Expandable cervical cages have been used successfully to reconstruct the anterior spinal column. OBJECTIVE To perform clinical and radiological evaluation of vertebral body replacement with an anchored expandable titanium cage in the cervical spine after single-level and 2-level corpectomies. METHODS Between 2011 and 2017, 40 patients underwent a single-level (N = 32) or 2-level (N = 8) anterior corpectomy and fusion using an anchored expandable vertebral body replacement cage. Clinical and radiological data at admission, postoperatively, and at 3- and 12-mo follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical assessment was performed via standardized neurological evaluation, Odom score, and McCormick classification. Radiological assessment was performed via evaluation of sagittal profile, postoperative position, fusion, and subsidence rates. RESULTS Mean last follow-up was 14.8 ± 7 mo. Overall clinical and myelopathy-related improvements were shown directly after operation and at last follow-up. A stable centralized positioning of cages was achieved in 37 patients (93%). A mild ventral (>1.5 mm) malplacement was noted in 3 patients (7%) without clinical consequences. Sagittal alignment and preoperative cervical kyphosis improved significantly (7.8° gain of lordosis) and remained stable. Mean preoperative height of operated segments increased by 10 mm postoperatively and remained stable. Fusion rate in non-neoplastic patients and subsidence rate at last follow-up comprised 87.5% and 17.8%. With exception of 1 patient suffering from severe osteoporosis and cage subsidence, no patient needed additional secondary stabilization. CONCLUSION Anterior corpectomy and fusion by an expandable anchored titanium cage with anchor screws without additional instrumentation resulted in overall clinical improvement and radiological anterior column support, achieving significant and reliable restoration of the physiological sagittal cervical profile.

scholarly journals Functional Outcome Following Synthetic Vertebral Body Implantation in the Management of Spinal Disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (B) ◽  
pp. 76-80
Author(s):  
Moneer K. Faraj ◽  
Bassam Mahmood Flamerz  Arkawazi ◽  
Hazim Moojid Abbas ◽  
Zaid Al-Attar
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Vertebral Body ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Spinal Tuberculosis ◽  
Vertebral Body Replacement ◽  
Spinal Tumors ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status Scale ◽  
Significant Change

OBJECTIVE: Synthetic vertebral body replacement has been widely used recently to treat different spinal conditions affecting the anterior column. They arrange from trauma, infections, and even tumor conditions. In this study, we assess the functional outcome of this modality in different spinal conditions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-six cases operated from October 2010 to December 2017. Twelve patients had spinal type A3 fractures, 11 cases with spinal tuberculosis (TB), and 13 cases with spinal tumors. They were followed clinically for a mean period of 2.4 years. RESULTS: All the cases were approached anteriorly. Seven cases had a post-operative infection. No neurological worsening reported. We had dramatic neurological improvement in all spinal TB cases. Mortality recorded in only 4 cases with metastatic spinal tumor during the mean period of follow-up. Karnofsky performance status scale showed statistically significant change for spinal TB, and tumor cases during the follow-up period, but there was no significant change in cases of spinal type A3 fractures. CONCLUSION: The positive outcome of this surgery makes it recommended for properly selected patients, especially with spinal TB and tumors.

scholarly journals Vertebral body replacement with an expandable cage for reconstruction after spinal tumor resection

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Issada Thongtrangan ◽  
Raju S. V. Balabhadra ◽  
Hoang Le ◽  
Jon Park ◽  
Daniel H. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Vertebral Body ◽  
Tumor Resection ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Vertebral Body Replacement ◽  
Spinal Tumors ◽  
Wide Resection ◽  
Primary Tumors ◽  
Expandable Cage ◽  
Expandable Cages

Object The authors report their clinical experience with expandable cages used to stabilize the spine after verte-brectomy. The objectives of surgical treatment for spine tumors include a decrease in pain, decompression of the neural elements, mechanical stabilization of the spine, and wide resection to gain local control of certain primary tumors. Most of the lesions occur in the anterior column or vertebral body (VB). Anterior column defects following resection of VBs require surgical restoration of anterior column support. Recently, various expandable cages have been developed and used clinically for VB replacement (VBR). Methods Between January 2001 and June 2003, the authors treated 15 patients who presented with primary spinal tumors and metastatic lesions from remote sites. All patients underwent vertebrectomy, VBR with an expandable cage, and anterior instrumentation with or without posterior instrumentation, depending on the stability of the involved segment. The correction of kyphotic angle was achieved at an average of 20°. Pain scores according to the visual analog scale decreased from 8.4 to 5.2 at the last follow-up review. Patients whose Frankel neurological grade was below D attained at least a one-grade improvement after surgery. All patients achieved immediate stability postsurgery and there were no significant complications related to the expandable cage. Conclusions The advantage of the expandable cage is that it is easy to use because it permits optimal fit and correction of the deformity by in vivo expansion of the device. These results are promising, but long-term follow up is required.

scholarly journals Dorsal instrumentation with and without vertebral body replacement in patients with thoracolumbar osteoporotic fractures shows comparable outcome measures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian Schwendner ◽  
Stefan Motov ◽  
Yu-Mi Ryang ◽  
Bernhard Meyer ◽  
Sandro M. Krieg
Keyword(s):  
Vertebral Body ◽  
Thoracolumbar Spine ◽  
Osteoporotic Fractures ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Vertebral Body Replacement ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Dorsal Instrumentation ◽  
The Individual

Abstract Purpose In the surgical treatment of osteoporotic spine fractures, there is no clear recommendation, which treatment is best for the individual patient with vertebra plana and/or neurological deficit requiring instrumentation. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes after dorsal or 360° instrumentation of osteoporotic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine in a cohort of patients representing clinical reality. Methods A total of 116 consecutive patients were operated on between 2008 and 2020. Inclusion criteria were osteoporotic fracture, thoracolumbar location, and dorsal instrumentation. In 79 cases, vertebral body replacement (VBR) was performed additionally. Patient outcomes including complications, EQ-5D at follow-up, and sagittal correction were analyzed. Results Medical and surgical complications occurred in 59.5% of patients with 360° instrumentation compared to 64.9% of patients with dorsal instrumentation only (p = 0.684). Dorsal instrumentation plus VBR resulted in a sagittal correction of 9.3 ± 7.4° (0.1–31.6°) compared to 6.0 ± 5.6° (0.2–22.8°) after dorsal instrumentation only, respectively (p = 0.0065). EQ-5D was completed by 79 patients after 4.00 ± 2.88 years (0.1–11.8 years) and was 0.56 ± 0.32 (− 0.21–1.00) for VBR compared to 0.56 ± 0.34 (− 0.08–1.00) without VBR after dorsal instrumentation (p = 0.994). Conclusion 360° instrumentation represents a legitimate surgical technique with no additional morbidity even for the elderly and multimorbid osteoporotic population. Particularly, if sufficient long-term construct stability is in doubt or ventral stenosis is present, there is no need to abstain from additional ventral reinforcement and decompression.

Acrylic Stabilization of the Cervical Spine for Neoplastic Disease: Evolution of a Technique for Vertebral Body Replacement

Neurosurgery ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Chadduck ◽  
Warren C. Boop
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Vertebral Body ◽  
Cervical Spinal Cord ◽  
Vertebral Body Replacement ◽  
Neoplastic Disease ◽  
Disease Evolution ◽  
Pin Fixation ◽  
Progression Of Disease ◽  
Vertebral Bodies

Abstract The resection of collapsed cervical vertebral bodies affected by malignant lytic lesions often requires innovative methods for stabilization. Over the years, immediate stabilization of the cervical spine has been achieved with acrylic bridges, preformed metallic placement bodies, fibular strut grafts, and other aids. Because acrylic bonds poorly to adjacent bony structures, techniques to assure the adequate fixation of an acrylic bridge between resected vertebral bodies are needed. The possible progression of disease in adjacent bone prompts us to maximize the amount of internal fixation with rods or pins to assure stability. Lasting stability has become more important as the longevity of cancer patients has been increased by multimodality therapy. We report our technique for treating cancer patients with acrylic and pin fixation of the cervical spine after vertebral body excision by the anterior route. Certain modifications of the technique may have advantages over previously reported procedures. Our series of six cases demonstrates the evolution of a technique that allows relatively rapid and easy decompression of the cervical spinal cord and provides immediate stability of the cervical spine. Our indications and contraindications for this procedure are also discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document