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

Abstract

Aim: Different expandable and non-expandable 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.

Key words

cervical spine - implants - complications

References

• 1 Albert TJ, Klein GR, Joffe D. et al . Use of cervicothoracic junction pedicle screws for reconstruction of complex cervical spine pathology.  Spine. 1998;  23 1596-1599
• 2 Bishop RC, Moore KA, Hadley MN. Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis.  J Neurosurg. 1996;  85 206-210
• 3 Butterman 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) 426-435
• 4 Das K, Couldwell WT, Sava G. et al . Use of cylindrical titanium mesh and locking plates in anterior cervical fusion.  Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2001;  94 174-178
• 5 Dorai Z, Morgan H, Coimbra C. Titanium cage reconstruction after cervical corpectomy.  J Neurosurg. 2003;  99 3-7
• 6 Edwards CC, Riew KD, Anderson PA. et al . Cervical myelopathy. current diagnostic and treatment strategies.  Spine J. 2003;  3 68-81
• 7 Epstein N. Diagnosis and surgical management of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.  Spine J. 2002;  2 436-449
• 8 Epstein NE, Silvergleide RS, Black K. Computed tomography validating bony ingrowth into fibula strut allograft: a criterion for fusion.  Spine J. 2002;  2 129-133
• 9 Floyd T, Ohnmeiss D. A meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion.  Eur Spine J. 2000;  9 398-403
• 10 Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J. et al . Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning.  Eur Spine J. 2003;  12 513-516
• 11 Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ. et al . A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage.  Spine. 2000;  25 2646-2654
• 12 Johnston FG, Crockard HA. One-stage internal fixation and anterior fusion in complex cervical spinal disorders.  J Neurosurg. 1995;  82 234-238
• 13 Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Schaefer J. et al . Biomechanical comparison of expandable cages for vertebral body replacement in the cervical spine.  J Neurosurg. 2003;  99 91-97
• 14 Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Schafer J. et al . Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages.  Spine. 2001;  26 1850-1857
• 15 Korinth MC. Treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease - Current status and trends.  Zentralbl Neurochir. 2008;  69 (3) 113-124
• 16 Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT. Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating.  Spine. 1999;  24 1604-1610
• 17 Malloy KM, Hilibrand AS. Autograft versus allograft in degenerative cervical disease.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;  394 27-38
• 18 Mayr MT, Subach BR, Comey CH. et al . Cervical spinal stenosis: outcome after anterior corpectomy, allograft reconstruction, and instrumentation.  J Neurosurg. 2002;  96 10-16
• 19 Morlock M, Strandborg J, Sellenschloh K. et al . [Comparison of different vertebral body prosthesis with reference to migration and primary stability in dorsoventral spondylodesis after corporectomy with and without laminectomy].  Orthopäde. 2002;  31 514-521
• 20 Narotam PK, Pauley SM, McGinn GJ. Titanium mesh cages for cervical spine stabilization after corpectomy: a clinical and radiological study.  J Neurosurg. 2003;  99 172-180
• 21 Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B. et al . Cervical disc lesions.  JAMA. 1958;  166 23-28
• 22 Patel CK, Fischgrund JS. Complications of anterior cervical spine surgery.  Instr Course Lect. 2003;  52 465-469
• 23 Payer M. Implantation of a distractible titanium cage after cervical corpectomy: technical experience in 20 consecutive cases.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006;  148 1173-1180
• 24 Pitzen TR, Chrobok J, Stulik J. et al . Implant complications, fusion, loss of lordosis, and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: two-year results of a multi-centric, randomized, controlled study.  Spine. 2009;  34 (7) 641-646
• 25 Samartzis D, Shen FH, Goldberg EJ. et al . Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation?.  Spine. 2005;  30 (15) 1756-1761
• 26 Samandouras G, Shafafy M, Hamlyn PJ. A new anterior cervical instrumentation system combining an intradiscal cage with an integrated plate: an early technical report.  Spine. 2001;  26 1188-1192
• 27 Shedid D, Benzel EC. Cervical spondylosis anatomy: pathophysiology and biomechanics.  Neurosurgery. 2007;  60 S7-S13
• 28 Steinmetz MP, Stewart TJ, Kager CD. et al . Cervical deformity correction.  Neurosurgery. 2007;  60 S90-S97
• 29 Suchomel P, Barsa P, Buchvald P. et al . Autologous versus allogenic bone grafts in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective study with respect to bone union pattern.  Eur Spine J. 2004;  13 510-515
• 30 Woiciechowsky C. Distractable vertebral cages for reconstruction after cervical corpectomy.  Spine. 2005;  30 1736-1741

Correspondence