Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

  • 제48권4호
  • /
  • Pages.342-346
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 2005-3711(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-7876(eISSN)
대한신경외과학회 (The Korean Neurosurgical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Fusion with Cage Alone and Plate Instrumentation in Two-Level Cervical Degenerative Disease

  • Joo, Yong-Hun (Department of Neurosurgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Jong-Won (Department of Neurosurgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital) ;
  • Kwon, Ki-Young (Department of Neurosurgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital) ;
  • Rhee, Jong-Joo (Department of Neurosurgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Hyun-Koo (Department of Neurosurgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2010.08.18
  • 심사 : 2010.10.11
  • 발행 : 2010.10.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective : This study assessed the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with cage alone compared with ACDF with plate instrumentation for radiologic and clinical outcomes in two-level cervical degenerative disease. Methods : Patients with cervical degenerative disc disease from September 2004 to December 2009 were assessed retrospectively. A total of 42 patients received all ACDF at two-level cervical lesion. Twenty-two patients who underwent ACDF with cage alone were compared with 20 patients who underwent ACDF with plate fixation in consideration of radiologic and clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Robinson's criteria and posterior neck pain, arm pain described by a 10 point-visual analog scale. Fusion rate, subsidence, kyphotic angle, instrument failure and the degenerative changes in adjacent segments were examined during each follow-up examination. Results : VAS was checked during each follow-up and Robinson's criteria were compared in both groups. Both groups showed no significant difference. Fusion rates were 90.9% (20/22) in ACDF with the cage alone group, 95% (19/20) in ACDF with the plate fixation group (p = 0.966). Subsidence rates of ACDF with cage alone were 31.81% (7/22) and ACDF with plate fixation were 30% (6/20) (p = 0.928). Local and regional kyphotic angle difference showed no significant difference. At the final follow-up, adjacent level disease developed in 4.54% (1/22) of ACDF with cage alone and 10% (2/20) of ACDF with plate fixation (p= 0.654). Conclusion : In two-level ACDF, ACDF with cage alone would be comparable with ACDF with plate fixation with regard to clinical outcome and radiologic result with no significant difference. We suggest that the routine use of plate and screw in 2-level surgery may not be beneficial.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barsa P, Suchomel P : Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 16: 1395-1400, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0284-8
  2. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK : Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75: 1298-1307, 1993 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199309000-00005
  3. Bolesta MJ, Rechtine GR 2nd, Chrin AM : One- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: the efrect of plate fixation. Spine J 2: 197-203, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00186-9
  4. Cauthen JC, Kinard RE, Vogler JB, Jackson DE, DePaz OB, Hunter L, et al. : Outcome analysis of noninstrumented anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion in 348 patients. Spine (phila Pa 1976) 23 : 188-192, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199801150-00008
  5. Cho DY, Lee WY, Shew PC : Treatment of multilevel cervical fusion with cages. Surg Neurol 62 : 378-385; discussion 385-386, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surneu.2004.01.021
  6. Cloward RB : The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disc. J Neurosurg 15: 602-617, 1958 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602
  7. Emery SE, Fisher JR, Bohlman HH : Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion : radiographic and clinical results. Spine (phila Pa 1976) 22: 2622-2625, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199711150-00008
  8. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, Grigorian AA, et al. : Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32: 2310-2317, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318154c57e
  9. Fraser JF, Hartl R: Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6 : 298-303, 2007 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.4.2
  10. Ha SK, Park JY, Kim SH, Lim DJ, Kim SD, Lee SK : Radiologic Assessment of subsidence in Stand-Alone Cervical Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 44 : 370-374, 2008 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2008.44.6.370
  11. Hacker RJ : Threaded cages for degenerative cervical disease. CIin Orthop Relat Res : 39-46, 2002
  12. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH : Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81 : 519-528, 1999 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009
  13. Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M, Schnake K, Putzier M, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, et al. : Treatment of traumatic cervical spine instability with interbody fusion cages : a prospective controlled study with a 2-year follow-up. Injury 36 Suppl 2 : B27-B35, 2005
  14. Kast E, Derakhshani S, Bothmann M, Oberle J. : Subsidence after anterior cervical interbody fusion. A randomized prospective clinical trial. Neu-rosurg Rev 32: 207-214; discussion 214, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-008-0168-y
  15. Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT: Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine (Pbila Pa 1976) 24 : 1604-1610, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199908010-00016
  16. Resnick DK, Trost GR : Use of Ventral plate fur cervical arthrodesis. Neurosurgery 60 : 112-117, 2007
  17. Robinson RA, Smith GW : Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disk syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96: 223-224, 1955
  18. Smith. GW, Robinson RA : The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A : 607-624, 1958
  19. Robinbon RA, Walker AE, Ferlic DC, Wiecking DK : The results of anterior interbody fusion of cer-vical spine. J Bone Joint Surg 44-A : 1569-1587,1962
  20. Song KJ, Kim GH, Choi BW, Lee KB : Does Plate Construct improve the result of 1- or 2-level anterior cervical fusion? Neurosurg Q 18 : 172-177, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/WNQ.0b013e3181820780
  21. Varruch L, Hedlund R, Javid D, Leszniewski W, Shalabi A : A prospective randomized comparison between the cloward procedure and a carbon fiber cage in the cervical spine : a clinical and radiologic study. Spine (phila Pa 1976) 27: 1694-1701,2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200208150-00003
  22. Wang JC, McDonough PW, Endow KK, Delarnarter RB : Increased fusion rates with cervical plating fur two-level anterior cervical discecromy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25: 41-45, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200001010-00009
  23. Xie JC, Hurlbert RJ : Discectomy versus discectomy with fusion versus discectomy with fusion and instrumentation: a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 61 : 107-116; discussion 116-117, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000279730.44016.da
  24. Zoega B, Karrholm J, Lind B : Plate fixation adds srability to two-level anterior fusion in the cervical spine : a randomized study using radiostereometry. Eur Spine J 7: 302-307, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860050079

피인용 문헌

  1. Comparison of Operating Time between Stand-alone Cage and a Standard Method for a Single Level Cervical Disc Disease vol.9, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2012.9.1.12
  2. Long-term Results of Cervical Interbody Fusion using Box-Shaped Titanium Cages vol.26, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.2531/spinalsurg.26.60
  3. Comparisons of Two-level Discectomy and Fusion with Cage Alone versus Single-level Corpectomy and Fusion with Plate in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease vol.9, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2012.9.3.197
  4. Deuk Laser Disc Repair ® is a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease vol.4, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.112610
  5. Autologous Iliac Bone Graft With Anterior Plating Is Advantageous Over the Stand-Alone Cage for Segmental Lordosis in Single-Level Cervical Disc Disease vol.72, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0b013e31827b94d4
  6. What are the associative factors of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical spine surgery? Comparative study between anterior cervical fusion and arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up MRI a vol.22, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2613-4
  7. Surgical Outcome of a Zero-profile Device Comparing with Stand-alone Cage and Anterior Cervical Plate with Iliac Bone Graft in the Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion vol.11, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2014.11.3.169
  8. Risk factors for subsidence in anterior cervical fusion with stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages: a review of 82 cases and 182 levels vol.134, pp.10, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2047-z
  9. The influence of cervical plate fixation with either autologous bone or cage insertion on radiographic and patient-rated outcomes after two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion vol.24, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3456-y
  10. Cervical Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone Cage versus Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer in Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion : Minimum 2-Year Assessment of Radiographic and Clinical Outc vol.58, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2015.58.2.119
  11. Comparison of the clinical and radiologic outcomes obtained with single- versus two-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion using stand-alone PEEK cages filled with allograft vol.158, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-015-2692-1
  12. Comparison of 1-Level Versus 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Clinical and Radiographic Follow-Up at 60 Months vol.41, pp.6, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001263
  13. Prevalence of adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery : A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis vol.95, pp.27, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000004171
  14. Cage Subsidence after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using a Cage Alone or Combined with Anterior Plate Fixation vol.24, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901602400122
  15. Long-Term Follow-Up Results of Anterior Cervical Inter-Body Fusion with Stand-Alone Cages vol.59, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2016.59.4.385
  16. A Comparison of Zero-Profile Devices and Artificial Cervical Disks in Patients With 2 Noncontiguous Levels of Cervical Spondylosis vol.29, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000096
  17. Stand-Alone Cages for Anterior Cervical Fusion: Are There No Problems? vol.13, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2016.13.1.13
  18. In Vivo Study of Hydroxyapatite-coated Hat Type Cervical Intervertebral Fusion Cage Combined With IGF-I and TGF-β1 in the Goat Model vol.29, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0b013e3182781d52
  19. The Effect of Uncinate Process Resection on Subsidence Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion vol.60, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2017.0202.014
  20. A Prospective Study with Cage-Only or Cage-with-Plate Fixation in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Interbody Fusion of One and Two Levels vol.60, pp.6, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2017.0211
  21. Influence of plate fixation on cervical height and alignment after one- or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion vol.32, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2017.1394980
  22. Biomechanical Analysis of Biodegradable Cervical Plates Developed for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion vol.12, pp.6, 2010, https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.12.6.1092
  23. Comparison of radiological outcomes and complications between single-level and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) by using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage–plate fusion vol.98, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000014277
  24. Fixation of multiple level anterior cervical disc using cages versus cages and plating vol.55, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-019-0062-2
  25. Minimally invasive fusion in patients with multilevel cervical spinal stenosis: case report and literature review vol.83, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.17116/neiro201983021109
  26. Evaluation of bony fusion after anterior cervical discectomy: a systematic literature review vol.28, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5820-9
  27. Stand-Alone Cervical Cages in 2-Level Anterior Interbody Fusion in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Results from a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up vol.13, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.0193
  28. Comparison of stand-alone cage and cage-with-plate for monosegmental cervical fusion and impact of virtual reality in evaluating surgical results vol.191, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105685
  29. Efficiency of minimal oblique resection of the uncinate process during an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion vol.100, pp.31, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000026790
  30. How Subsidence Affects Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Stand-Alone Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Patients with Degenerative Cervical Disease? A Long-Term Follow-Up Study vol.7, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.21129/nerve.2021.7.2.57