scholarly journals Cage Subsidence after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using a Cage Alone or Combined with Anterior Plate Fixation

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M Pinder ◽  
David J Sharp
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-569
Author(s):  
Minghao Wang ◽  
Dean Chou ◽  
Chih-Chang Chang ◽  
Ankit Hirpara ◽  
Yilin Liu ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEBoth structural allograft and PEEK have been used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There are reports that PEEK has a higher pseudarthrosis rate than structural allograft. The authors compared pseudarthrosis, revision, subsidence, and loss of lordosis rates in patients with PEEK and structural allograft.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with ACDF at their hospital between 2005 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with either PEEK or structural allograft, anterior plate fixation, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were hybrid PEEK and allograft cases, additional posterior surgery, adjacent corpectomies, infection, tumor, stand-alone or integrated screw and cage devices, bone morphogenetic protein use, or lack of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographic variables, number of treated levels, interbody type (PEEK cage vs structural allograft), graft packing material, pseudarthrosis rates, revision surgery rates, subsidence, and cervical lordosis changes were collected. These data were analyzed by Pearson’s chi-square test (or Fisher’s exact test, according to the sample size and expected value) and Student t-test.RESULTSA total of 168 patients (264 levels total, mean follow-up time 39.5 ± 24.0 months) were analyzed. Sixty-one patients had PEEK, and 107 patients had structural allograft. Pseudarthrosis rates for 1-level fusions were 5.4% (PEEK) and 3.4% (allograft) (p > 0.05); 2-level fusions were 7.1% (PEEK) and 8.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05); and ≥ 3-level fusions were 10% (PEEK) and 11.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the subsidence magnitude between PEEK and allograft in 1-, 2-, and ≥ 3-level ACDF (p > 0.05). Postoperative lordosis loss was not different between cohorts for 1- and 2-level surgeries.CONCLUSIONSIn 1- and 2-level ACDF with plating involving the same number of fusion levels, there was no statistically significant difference in the pseudarthrosis rate, revision surgery rate, subsidence, and lordosis loss between PEEK cages and structural allograft.


Spine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. E413-E422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremie D. Oliver ◽  
Sandy Goncalves ◽  
Panagiotis Kerezoudis ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
Brett A. Freedman ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron A. Elliott ◽  
Richard Fox ◽  
Robert Ashforth ◽  
Sita Gourishankar ◽  
Andrew Nataraj

OBJECT This study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of postoperative MRI artifact on the assessment of ongoing spinal cord or nerve root compression after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a trabecular tantalum cage or bone autograft or allograft. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective review of postoperative MRI studies of patients treated surgically for cervical disc degenerative disease or cervical instability secondary to trauma. Standard ACDF with either a trabecular tantalum cage or interbody bone graft had been performed. Postoperative MR images were shown twice in random order to each of 3 assessors (2 spine surgeons, 1 neuroradiologist) to determine whether the presence of a tantalum interbody cage and/or anterior cervical fixation plate or screws imparted MRI artifact significant enough to prevent reliable postoperative assessment of ongoing spinal cord or nerve root compression. RESULTS A total of 63 patients were identified. One group of 29 patients received a tantalum interbody cage, with 13 patients (45%) undergoing anterior plate fixation. A second group of 34 patients received bone auto- or allograft, with 23 (68%) undergoing anterior plate fixation. The paramagnetic implant construct artifact had minimal impact on visualization of postoperative surgical level spinal cord compression. In the cage group, 98% (171/174) of the cases were rated as assessable versus 99% in the bone graft group (201/204), with high intraobserver reliability. In contrast, for the assessment of ongoing surgical level nerve root compression, the presence of a tantalum cage significantly decreased visualization of nerve roots to 70% (121/174) in comparison with 85% (173/204) in the bone graft group (p < 0.001). When sequences using turbo spin echo (TSE), a T2-weighted axial sequence, were acquired, nerve roots were rated as assessable in 88% (69/78) of cases; when only axial T2-weighted sequences were available, the nerve roots were rated as assessable in 54% (52/96) of cases (p < 0.01). The presence of anterior plate fixation had minimal impact on visualization of the spinal cord (99% [213/216] for plated cases vs 98% [159/162] for nonplated cases; p = 1.0) or nerve roots (79% [170/216] for plated cases vs 77% [124/162] for nonplated cases; p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS Interbody fusion with tantalum cage following anterior cervical discectomy imparts significant paramagnetic artifact, which significantly decreases visualization and assessment of ongoing surgical level nerve root, but not spinal cord, compression. Anterior plate constructs do not affect visualization of these structures. TSE T2-weighted sequences significantly improve nerve root visualization and should be performed as part of a standard postoperative protocol when imaging the cervical spine following interbody implantation of materials with potential for paramagnetic artifact.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
ING HOW MOO ◽  
Carmen Jia Wen Kam ◽  
Maksim Wen Sheng Lai ◽  
William Yeo ◽  
Reuben Chee Cheong Soh

Abstract Background: Allografts and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages are the two most commonly used material in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, their effectiveness in in two-level ACDF remains controversial. The primary aim of this retrospective study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two-level ACDF with plate fixation using either a structural allograft or a PEEK cage. Methods: From 2010 to 2015, 88 consecutive patients underwent a two-level ACDF of which 53 used an allograft and 35 patients with a PEEK cage. All PEEK cages were filled with local autografts. All clinical outcomes were prospectively collected preoperatively, at six months and at two years after surgery. Clinical efficacy was evaluated using visual analogue scale for neck pain and limb pain, the Neck Pain and Disability Score, Neck Disability Index, Neurogenic Symptom Score, and the Japan Orthopedic Association score. Radiological outcomes were assessed preoperatively, immediately after surgery, and at the final follow-up. Results: A preoperative comparison revealed no difference between the two patient groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, preoperative symptoms, operated levels, and follow-up (mean= 42.8 months). No difference in improvements in the clinical outcome between the two groups was observed. Both groups showed significant improvement in mean disc height, segmental height, and segmental lordosis postoperatively. The fusion rates for PEEK cage was 100% at both levels while the fusion rates for allograft group was 98.1% at cephalad level and 94.2% at caudad level (p>0.05). Subsidence at the cephalad level occurred in 22.9% (8/35) segments in the PEEK group and 7.7% (4/52) segments in the allograft group (p=0.057). At the caudal level, a higher cage subsidence was noted in the PEEK group compared to the allograft group [37.1% (13/35) versus 15.4% (8/52)] (p=0.02). Overall, subsidence was noted in 30% (21/70) of the PEEK group and in 11% (12/104) of the allograft group (p<0.05). Conclusion: The use of PEEK cages resulted in a higher rate of subsidence in two-level ACDF as compared to allograft. Two-level ACDF using either allografts or PEEK cages resulted in similar clinical outcomes, radiological improvements in alignment and fusion rates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document