medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2015, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2015; 29 (1)

Comparative study between plate-graft, cage-plate and peek cage in cervical arthrodesis for cervical stenosis

Alpizar-Aguirre A, Estrada-Gómez JA, Zárate-Kalfopulus B, Sánchez-Bringas G, Rosales-Olivares LM, Reyes-Sánchez AA

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 28-33
PDF size: 180.06 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: A variety of systems have been developed to fix and perform arthrodesis of the cervical spine, with the advantages of reducing the risk of pseudoarthrosis, extrusion and graft collapse and achieving a more precise sagittal alignment. We therefore need to compare the results of the following approaches to patients with cervical stenosis: plate-graft, cage-plate and PEEK cage. Material and methods: Prospective, interventional, comparative trial involving three groups: group I, arthrodesis with plate-graft; group II, cage-plate, and group III, PEEK cage. The pre- and postoperative assessments included the cervical disability scale, the pain visual analog scale (VAS), and cervical spine X-rays. The results were analyzed with non-parametric tests such as the Wilcoxon sign test and the Kruskal-Wallis test for the comparison of more than two groups. Significance level was 0.05. Results: The sample included a total of 37 patients: n = 12 in group I, with 22 levels; n = 11 in group II, with 19 levels, and n = 14 in group III, with 25 levels. Patient age ranged between 60 and 80. One year after surgery there was an improvement in cervical disability and the pain VAS score, with a statistically significant difference among the three groups (p = 0.001). However, radiographic measurements at that time showed a significant improvement in segmental lordosis (p = 0.02) only in plate-graft patients. Conclusions: The plate-graft approach provides better clinical and radiographic results compared to the cage-plate and PEEK cage techniques, at the one-year follow-up.


REFERENCES

  1. Rao R: Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84-A(10): 1872-81.

  2. Rhee JM, Yoon T, Riew KD: Cervical radiculopathy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007; 15(8): 486-94.

  3. Salvi FJ, Jones JC, Weigert BJ: The assessment of cervical myelopathy. Spine J. 2006; 6(6 Suppl): 182S-9S.

  4. Baptiste DC, Fehlings MG: Pathophysiology of cervical myelopathy. Spine J. 2006; 6(6 Suppl): 190S-7S.

  5. Rao R D, Gourab K, David KS: Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88: 1619-40.

  6. Matz PG: Does nonoperative management play a role in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Spine J. 2006; 6(6 Suppl): 175S-81S.

  7. Komotar RJ, Mocco J, Kaiser MG: Surgical management of cervical myelopathy: indications and techniques for laminectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2006; 6(6 Suppl): 252S-267S.

  8. Edwards CC, Riew KD, Anderson PA, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AF: Cervical myelopathy: current diagnostic and treatment strategies. Spine J. 2003; 3(1): 68-81.

  9. Greene DL, Crawford NR, Chamberlain RH: Biomechanical comparison of cervical interbody cage versus structural bone graft. Spine J. 2003; 3(4): 262-9.

  10. Demircan MN, Kutlay AM, Colak A, Kaya S, Tekin Tekin T: Multilevel cervical fusion without plates, screws or autogenous iliac crest bone graft. J Clin Neurosci. 2007; 14(8): 723-8.

  11. Castro FP, Holt RT, Majd M, Withecloud TS: A cost analysis of two anterior cervical fusion procedures. J Spinal Disord. 2000; 13(6): 511-4.

  12. Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD: Outcome of patients treated for cervical myelopathy. A prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(6): 670-6.

  13. Martín R, Carda JR, Pinto JI, Sanz F, Montiaga F, Paternina F, et al: Anterior cervical diskectomy and interbody arthrodesis using Cloward technique: retrospective study of complications and radiological results of 167 cases. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2002; 13(4): 265-84.

  14. De la Torre-Gutiérrez M, Martínez-Quiñones JV, Escobar R, Rodríguez D: Artrodesis cervical anterior con espaciadores intersomáticos. Neurocirugía. 2001; 12: 210-3.

  15. González J, Pesudo J, Tatay R: Fusión cervical postdisectomía. Estudio clínico-radiológico comparando el injerto óseo de cresta ilíaca, placa cervical anterior con injerto óseo y placa-caja GD. Neurocirugía. 2001; 12: 143-51.

  16. González J, Atienza C, Moya F: Placa-caja para fijación cervical por vía anterior. Estudio biomecánico. Neurocirugía. 2000; 11: 152-7.

  17. Arnold P, Boswell S, McMahon J: Threaded interbody fusion cage for adjacent segment degenerative disease after previous anterior cervical fusion. Surg Neurol. 2008: 1-7.

  18. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL: A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine. 2000; 25: 2646-54.

  19. Ryu S, Mitchell M, Kim D: A prospective randomized study comparing a cervical carbon fiber cage to the Smith-Robinson technique with allograft and plating: up to 24 months follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 157-64.

  20. Floyd T, Ohnmeiss D: A metaanalysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J. 2000; 9: 398-403.

  21. Hao-Che CH, Cheng-Siu CH, Wen-Yuen L, Lee WY, Jung-Chung C, Lee HC, et al: Efficacy and safety on the use titanium to cage and anterior cervical plates for interbody fusion alter anterior cervical corpectomy. Surg Neurol. 2006; 65: 464-71.

  22. Shiuh-Lin H, Kung-Shing L, Yu-Feng S, Kuo TH, Lieu AS, Lin CL, et al: Anterior corpectomy with iliac bone fusion of disectomy with interbody titanium cage fusion for multilevel cervical degenerated disc disease. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007; 20: 565-70.

  23. Known B, Vaccaro A, Grauer J, Beiner JM: The use of rigid internal fixation in the surgical management of cervical spondylosis. Neurosurgery. 2007; 60 S1: 118-29.

  24. González-Darder J, Pesudo-Martínez JV, Feliú-Tatay R: Fusión cervical postdisectomía. Estudio clínico radiológico comparando el injerto óseo de cresta ilíaca, placa cervical anterior con injerto óseo y placa-caja GD. Neurocirugía. 2001; 12: 143-51.

  25. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, SaruhashiY, Mori K: Kyphotic malalignment alter anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10: 320-4.

  26. Samaundouras G, Shafaly M, Hamlyn PJ: A new anterior cervical Instrumentation system combining and intradiscal cage with and integrated plate. Spine. 2001; 26(10): 1188-91.

  27. Matge G: Cervical cage fusion whit 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 144: 539-49.

  28. Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM: Interbody cage devices. Spine. 2003; 28 (Suppl 15): S2-S7.

  29. Tureyen K. Disc height loss after anterior cervical microdiscectomy with titanium intervertebral cage fusion. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2003; 145: 565-9.

  30. Buttermann GR: Prospective nonrandomized comparison of an allograft with bone morphogenic protein versus an iliac-crest autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2008; 8(3): 426-35.

  31. Malloy KM, Hilibrand AS: Autograft versus allograft in degenerative cervical disease. Clin Orthop. 2002; 394: 27-38.

  32. Samartzis D, Shen FH, Matthews DK, Yoon ST, Goldberg EJ, An HS: Comparison of allograft to autograft in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid plate fixation. Spine J. 2003; 3(6): 451-9.

  33. Ramakrishna S, Mayer J, Wintermantel E, Leong KW: Biomedical application of polymer-composite materials: a review. Comp Sci & Tech. 2001; 61: 1189-224.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com