Posts

A Comparative Study Between the Functional and Radiological Outcomes of ACDF Using Locking Stand Alone Cage And Anterior Cervical Plate With Titanium Disc Cage in Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease

Vol. 10 | Issue 1 | January-February 2022 | Page: 15-21 | HS Chandrashekar, Mohan N S, Ashwin S, Syed Farhan Bukhari, Nithin S M

DOI:10.13107/jkoa.2022.v10i01.046


Authors: HS Chandrashekar [1], Mohan N S [1], Ashwin S [1], Syed Farhan Bukhari [1], Nithin S M
[1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Ashwin S,
Department of Orthopaedics, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: ashwinsuresh47@gmail.com


Abstract


Background: Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy are common problems for which anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a gold standard procedure. There are various implant options available, two of which are commonly used in practice. Anterior cervical cage with plate and locking standalone cage. Our study aims to compare these two methods to know the functional and radiological outcomes after Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedure.
Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective comparative study of 60 patients with single or two level degenerative cervical spine disease with failed conservative management. They were divided randomly into 2 groups of 30 patients each one group treated using locking standalone cage and the other with anterior cervical plate with cage using Smith Robinson approach. The clinical outcome was measured using visual analogue scores, Robinson’s criteria and Neck disability index and the radiological outcome was assessed using cobb’s angle, segmental height and segment angle with a follow up period of 2 years.
Results: At 2 years follow up, good functional outcomes were obtained in both implant groups in terms of Robinson criteria, neck disability index and visual analogue scale. And good radiological outcomes were obtained in both implant groups with 93.3% fusion rates in both groups. Significant dysphagia was seen in the cage with plate group(26.6%) and significant cage subsidence was noted in the standalone cage group(20%).
Conclusion: The functional and radiological outcomes are superior at 2 years follow up in both implant groups. Hence standalone cage and cage with plate technique both are equally safe and effective treatment options in 1 or 2 level degenerative cervical spine disease.
Keywords: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, Neck Disability Index, Visual Analogue scale, Locking standalone cage, Anterior cervical plate, cage subsidence, Robinson criteria.


References


1. John C Quinn,MD Paul D, Kiely, MCh, FRCh, Darren R, Lebl, MD, Alexander P, Hughes MD- Anterior surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy HSS Journal(2015) 11:15-25, DOI 10.1007/s11420-9408-6
2. Ehab Shiban, Karina Gapon, Maria Wostrack, Bernhard Meyer, Jens Lehmberg-Clinical and radiological outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with standalone empty polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages-Acta Neurochir(2016) 158:349-355, DOI 10.1007/s00701-015-2630-2
3. Paolo Perrini, Federico Cagnazzo, Nicola Benedetto, Riccardo Morganti, Carlo Gambacciani- Cage with anterior plating is advantageousover the standalone cage for segmental lordosis in the treatment of two level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study- Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 163(2017) 27-32.
4. Mithun Nambiar, Kevin Phan, John Edward Cunningham, Yi Yang, Peter Lawrence Turner, Ralph Mobbs- Locking standalone cages versus anterior plate constructs in single level fusion for degenerative cervical disease: a systematic review and meta analysis- Eur Spine J(2017) 26:2258-2266 DOI 10.1007/s00586-017-5015-9
5. Zhongai Li, Yantao Zhao, Jiaguang Tang, Dongfeng Ren, Jidong Guo, Huadong Wang, Li Li, Shuxun Hou- A comparison of a new zero profile, standalone Fidji cervical cage and anterior cervical plate for single and multilevel ACDF: a minimum 2 year follow up- Eur Spine J(2017) 26:1129-1139 DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4739-2
6. Christopher Brenke, Martin Dostal, Johann Scharf, Christel Weib, Kirsten Schmieder, Martin Barth- Influence of cervical bone mineral density on cage subsidence in patients following stand alone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion- Eur Spine J(2015) 24:2832-2840 DOI 10.1007/s00586-014-3725-9
7. Zoe B. Cheung, MD, MS1 , Sunder Gidumal, BA1 , Samuel White, BA1 , John Shin, MD1 , Kevin Phan, MD, MSc, MPhil1 , Nebiyu Osman, BA1 , Rachel Bronheim, BA1 , Luilly Vargas, BSN1 , Jun S. Kim, MD1 , and Samuel K. Cho, MD1-Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Stand-Alone Interbody Cage Versus a Conventional Cage-Plate Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis- Global Spine Journal 2019 Vol 9(4) 446-455 DOI 10.1177/2192568218774576
8. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):2310-2317.
9. Fogel GR, McDonnell MF. Surgical treatment of dysphagia after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J. 2005;5(2):140-144.
10. Ahn SS, Paik HK, Chin DK, Kim SH, Kim DW, Ku MG. The fate of adjacent segments after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: the influence of an anterior plate system. World Neurosurg. 2016;89:42-50
11. Park JB, Cho YS, Riew KD. Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):558-563
12. Liu Y, Wang H, Li X, et al. Comparison of a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with an anterior plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:1881-1890
13. Karikari IO, Jain D, Owens TR, et al. Impact of subsidence on clinical outcomes and radiographic fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(1):1-10.
14. Hwang SL, Hwang YF, Lieu AS et al: Outcome analyses of interbody titanium cage fusion used in the anterior discectomy for cervical degenerative disc disease. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005; 18: 326–31
15. Dufour T, Huppert J, Louis C et al: Radiological analysis of 37 segments in cervical spine implanted with a peek stand-alone device, with at least one-year follow-up. Br J Neurosurg, 2010; 24: 633–40
16. Kwon WK, Kim PS, Ahn SY, et al. Analysis of associating factors with C2-7 sagittal vertical axis after two-level anterior cervical fusion: comparison between plate augmentation and stand-alone cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:318-325.
17. Li Z, Zhao Y, Tang J, et al. A comparison of a new zero-profile, stand-alone Fidji cervical cage and anterior cervical plate for single and multilevel ACDF: a minimum 2-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1129-1139.
18. Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Yoshida M, Hayashi N, Ando M, Yamada H. Axial symptoms and cervical alignments after cervical anterior spinal fusion for patients with cervical myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12(1):50-56.
19. Lee CH, Hyun SJ, Kim MJ et al: Comparative analysis of 3 different construct systems for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: stand-alone cage, iliac graft plus plate augmentation, and cage plus plating. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2013; 26: 112–18
20. Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B et al. Long term follow up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Discord Tech, 2004;17:79-85.


How to Cite this article:  Chandrashekar HS, Mohan NS, Ashwin S, Bukhari SF, Nithin SM | A Comparative Study Between the Functional and Radiological Outcomes of ACDF Using Locking Stand Alone Cage And Anterior Cervical Plate With Titanium Disc Cage in Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease | Journal of Karnataka Orthopaedic Association | January-February 2022; 10(1): 15-21.

 


 


                                          (Abstract Text HTML)      (Download PDF)