Cages with Fixation Wings Versus Cages Plus Plating for Cervical Reconstruction after Corpectomy - Is there any Difference?

被引:17
作者
Cabraja, M. [1 ]
Abbushi, A. [1 ]
Kroppenstedt, S. [1 ]
Woiciechowsky, C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Neurosurg, Campus Virchow Klinikum, D-13353 Berlin, Germany
来源
CENTRAL EUROPEAN NEUROSURGERY | 2010年 / 71卷 / 02期
关键词
cervical spine; implants; complications; VERTEBRAL BODY REPLACEMENT; INTERBODY FUSION; TITANIUM CAGE; DISKECTOMY; ALLOGRAFT; AUTOGRAFT; PLATES; MESH;
D O I
10.1055/s-0029-1246135
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
100204 [神经病学];
摘要
Aim: Different expandable and non-expand able fusion cages have gained acceptance in spinal surgery. We compared the radiological outcome of titanium cages with mounted wings to cages with additional anterior plating. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 44 patients after single or two-level cervical corpectomy. For reconstruction of the anterior column two different anterior distraction devices (ADD) were used: cage plus ventral plating (16 cases, ADD group) or cage with fixation wings (28 cases, ADDplus group). Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed after 1 week, 6 months and 12 months. Cervical lordosis, the angle between the adjacent vertebral bodies, the settling ratio, fusion rates, stability, neurological outcome and complications were assessed to compare both groups. Results: Both groups had similar final clinical but different radiological outcomes. The fusion rate was 100% in the ADD group and 89% in the ADDplus group. Furthermore, the relative loss of cervical lordosis after 12 months was higher in the ADDplus group (-6.9% vs. -1.6%). The loss of correction of the relative rotation angle of the operated segment was also higher in the ADDplus group (-4.3 vs. -1.7). Additional surgery was necessary in three cases in the ADDplus group. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that expandable cages are useful vertebral body replacements, because they can be adjusted to the size of the corpectomy in situ and provide immediate strong anterior column support avoiding bone graft site morbidity. The direct attachment of fixation wings to the cage simplifies the operative procedure but carries a significantly higher risk of non-fusion, loss of lordotic correction and height.
引用
收藏
页码:59 / 63
页数:5
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]
Use of cervicothoracic junction pedicle screws for reconstruction of complex cervical spine pathology [J].
Albert, TJ ;
Klein, GR ;
Joffe, D ;
Vaccaro, AR .
SPINE, 1998, 23 (14) :1596-1599
[2]
Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: A prospective comparative analysis [J].
Bishop, RC ;
Moore, KA ;
Hadley, MN .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1996, 85 (02) :206-210
[3]
Prospective nonrandomized comparison of an allograft with bone morphogenic protein versus an iliac-crest autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [J].
Buttermann, Glenn Robin .
SPINE JOURNAL, 2008, 8 (03) :426-435
[4]
Use of cylindrical titanium mesh and locking plates in anterior cervical fusion - Technical note [J].
Das, K ;
Couldwell, WT ;
Sava, G ;
Taddonio, RF .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2001, 94 (01) :174-178
[5]
Titanium cage reconstruction after cervical corpectomy [J].
Dorai, Z ;
Morgan, H ;
Coimbra, C .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2003, 99 (01) :3-7
[6]
Edwards Charles C 2nd, 2003, Spine J, V3, P68, DOI 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00566-1
[7]
Epstein Nancy, 2002, Spine J, V2, P436, DOI 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00394-7
[8]
Epstein Nancy E, 2002, Spine J, V2, P129, DOI 10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00154-1
[9]
A meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion [J].
Floyd, T ;
Ohnmeiss, D .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2000, 9 (05) :398-403
[10]
Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning [J].
Gercek, E ;
Arlet, V ;
Delisle, J ;
Marchesi, D .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2003, 12 (05) :513-516