scholarly journals Polyetheretherketone Cage with Demineralized Bone Matrix Can Replace Iliac Crest Autografts for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soo-Han Kim ◽  
Jung-Kil Lee ◽  
Jae-Won Jang ◽  
Hyun-Woong Park ◽  
Hyuk Hur
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Murphy ◽  
Austin R. Davidson ◽  
Derek M. Kelly ◽  
William C. Warner ◽  
Jeffrey R. Sawyer

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. E6
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Bergin ◽  
Timothy Y. Wang ◽  
Christine Park ◽  
Shashank Rajkumar ◽  
C. Rory Goodwin ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE The use of osteobiologics, engineered materials designed to promote bone healing by enhancing bone growth, is becoming increasingly common for spinal fusion procedures, but the efficacy of some of these products is unclear. The authors performed a retrospective, multi-institutional study to investigate the clinical and radiographic characteristics of patients undergoing single-level anterior cervical discectomy with fusion performed using the osteobiologic agent Osteocel, an allograft mesenchymal stem cell matrix. METHODS The medical records across 3 medical centers and 12 spine surgeons were retrospectively queried for patients undergoing single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with the use of Osteocel. Pseudarthrosis was determined based on CT or radiographic imaging of the cervical spine. Patients were determined to have radiographic pseudarthrosis if they met any of the following criteria: 1) lack of bridging bone on CT obtained > 300 days postoperatively, 2) evidence of instrumentation failure, or 3) motion across the index level as seen on flexion-extension cervical spine radiographs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were then performed to identify independent preoperative or perioperative predictors of pseudarthrosis in this population. RESULTS A total of 326 patients met the inclusion criteria; 43 (13.2%) patients met criteria for pseudarthrosis, of whom 15 (34.9%) underwent revision surgery. There were no significant differences between patients with and those without pseudarthrosis, respectively, for patient age (54.1 vs 53.8 years), sex (34.9% vs 47.4% male), race, prior cervical spine surgery (37.2% vs 33.6%), tobacco abuse (16.3% vs 14.5%), chronic kidney disease (2.3% vs 2.8%), and diabetes (18.6% vs 14.5%) (p > 0.05). Presence of osteopenia or osteoporosis (16.3% vs 3.5%) was associated with pseudarthrosis (p < 0.001). Implant type was also significantly associated with pseudarthrosis, with a 16.4% rate of pseudarthrosis for patients with polyetherethereketone (PEEK) implants versus 8.4% for patients with allograft implants (p = 0.04). Average lengths of follow-up were 27.6 and 23.8 months for patients with and those without pseudarthrosis, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated osteopenia or osteoporosis (OR 4.97, 95% CI 1.51–16.4, p < 0.01) and usage of PEEK implant (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.04–4.83, p = 0.04) as independent predictors of pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS In patients who underwent single-level ACDF, rates of pseudarthrosis associated with the use of the osteobiologic agent Osteocel are higher than the literature-reported rates associated with the use of alternative osteobiologics. This is especially true when Osteocel is combined with a PEEK implant.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 843
Author(s):  
Ankit Madan ◽  
Manoj Thakur ◽  
Sachin Sud ◽  
Vaibhav Jain ◽  
RudraPratap Singh Thakur ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Oleksii S. Nekhlopochyn ◽  
Ievgenii I. Slynko ◽  
Vadim V. Verbov

Cervical spine injuries are a fairly common consequence of mechanical impact on the human body. The subaxial level of the cervical spine accounts for approximately half to 2/3 of these injuries. Despite the numerous classification systems that exist for describing these injuries, the recommendations for treatment strategy are very limited, and currently none of them is universal and generally accepted. Consequently, treatment decisions are based on the individual experience of the specialist, but not on evidence or algorithms. While the classification system based on the mechanism of trauma originally proposed by B.L. Allen et al. and subsequently modified by J.H. Harris Jr et al., was comprehensive, but lacked evidence, which to some extent limited its clinical applicability. Similarly, the Subaxial Injury Classification System proposed by the Spine Trauma Group, had no distinct and clinically significant patterns of morphological damage. This fact hindered the standardization and unification of tactical approaches. As an attempt to solve this problem, in 2016 Alexander Vaccaro, together with AO Spine, proposed the AO Spine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system, using the principle of already existing AOSpine classification of thoracolumbar injuries. The aim of the project was to develop an effective system that provides clear, clinically relevant morphological descriptions of trauma patterns, which should contribute to the determination of treatment strategy. The proposed classification of cervical spine injuries at the subaxial level follows the same hierarchical approach as previous AO classifications, namely, it characterizes injuries based on 4 parameters: (1) injury morphology, (2) facet damage, (3) neurological status, and (4) specific modifiers. The morphology of injuries is divided into 3 subgroups of injuries: A (compression), B (flexion-distraction), and C (dislocations and displacements). Damage types A and B are divided into 5 (A0-A4) and 3 (B1-B3) subtypes, respectively. When describing damage of the facet joints, 4 subtypes are distinguished: F1 (fracture without displacement), F2 (unstable fracture), F3 (floating lateral mass) and F4 (dislocation). The system also integrates the assessment of neurological status, which is divided into 6 subtype). In addition, the classification includes 4 specific modifiers designed to better detail a number of pathological conditions. The performance evaluation of AOSpine SCICS showed a moderate to significant range of consistency and reproducibility. Currently, a quantitative scale for assessing the severity of classification classes has been proposed, which also, to a certain extent, contributes to decision-making regarding treatment strategy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document