A systematic review of the use of expandable cages in the cervical spine
- 1.3k Downloads
Expandable vertebral body replacement cages (VBRs) have been widely used for reconstruction of the thoracolumbar spine following corpectomy. However, their use in the cervical spine is less common, and currently, no expandable cages on the market are cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the cervical spine. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review on the use of expandable cages in the treatment of cervical spine pathology with a focus on fusion rates, deformity correction, complications, and indications. A comprehensive Medline search was performed, and 24 applicable articles were identified and included in this review. The advantages of expandable cages include greater ease of implantation with less risk of damage to the end plate, less intraoperative manipulation of the device, and potentially greater control over lordosis. They may be particularly advantageous in cases with poor bone quality, such as patients with osteoporosis or metastatic tumors that have been radiated. However, there is a potential risk of overdistraction, which is increased in the cervical spine, their minimum height limits their use in cases with collapsed vertebra, and the amount of hardware in the expansion mechanism may limit the surface area available for fusion. The use of expandable VBRs are a valuable tool in the armamentarium for reconstruction of the anterior column of the cervical spine with an acceptable safety profile. Although expandable cervical cages are clearly beneficial in certain clinical situations, widespread use following all corpectomies is not justified due to their significantly greater cost compared to structural bone grafts or non-expandable VBRs, which can be utilized to achieve similar clinical outcomes.
KeywordsExpandable cage Vertebral body replacement Supplemental fixation Cervical corpectomy Biomechanics
Compliance with ethical standards
**This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA’s views or policies.
Conflict of interest
Benjamin Elder has no conflict of interest.
Sheng-Fu Lo has no conflict of interest.
Thomas Kosztowski has no conflict of interest.
C. Rory Goodwin has no conflict of interest.
Timothy F. Witham receives research support from Eli Lilly & Co, The Johns Hopkins Neurological Pain Research Institute, and the Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation.
- 4.Ayhan S, Palaoglu S, Geyik S, Saatci I, Onal MB (2014) Concomitant intramedullary arteriovenous malformation and a vertebral hemangioma of cervical spine discovered by a pathologic fracture during bicycle accident. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3620-4 Google Scholar
- 7.Cabraja M, Abbushi A, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S, Woiciechowsky C (2010) Comparison between anterior and posterior decompression with instrumentation for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: sagittal alignment and clinical outcome. Neurosurg Focus 28(3):E15. doi: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09253 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Eleraky M, Papanastassiou I, Tran ND, Dakwar E, Vrionis FD (2011) Comparison of polymethylmethacrylate versus expandable cage in anterior vertebral column reconstruction after posterior extracavitary corpectomy in lumbar and thoraco-lumbar metastatic spine tumors. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity Soc Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 20(8):1363–1370. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1738-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Han YC, Liu ZQ, Wang SJ, Li LJ, Tan J (2014) Is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion superior to corpectomy and fusion for treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(1):e87191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087191 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Jost B, Cripton PA, Lund T, Oxland TR, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP (1998) Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 7(2):132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Koller H, Schmidt R, Mayer M, Hitzl W, Zenner J, Midderhoff S, Graf N, Resch H, Wilke HJ (2010) The stabilizing potential of anterior, posterior and combined techniques for the reconstruction of a 2-level cervical corpectomy model: biomechanical study and first results of ATPS prototyping. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 19(12):2137–2148. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1503-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Lied B, Roenning PA, Sundseth J, Helseth E (2010) Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in patients with cervical disc degeneration: a prospective outcome study of 258 patients (181 fused with autologous bone graft and 77 fused with a PEEK cage). BMC Surg 10:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-10-10 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Omeis I, Bekelis K, Gregory A, McGirt M, Sciubba D, Bydon A, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan Z, Witham T (2010) The use of expandable cages in patients undergoing multilevel corpectomies for metastatic tumors in the cervical spine. Orthopedics 33(2):87–92. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100104-12 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE (2003) Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 12(4):413–420. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0505-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Sciubba DM, Gallia GL, McGirt MJ, Woodworth GF, Garonzik IM, Witham T, Gokaslan ZL, Wolinsky JP (2007) Thoracic kyphotic deformity reduction with a distractible titanium cage via an entirely posterior approach. Neurosurgery 60(4 Suppl 2):223–230. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000255385.18335.A8, discussion 230–221 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Shen FH, Marks I, Shaffrey C, Ouellet J, Arlet V (2008) The use of an expandable cage for corpectomy reconstruction of vertebral body tumors through a posterior extracavitary approach: a multicenter consecutive case series of prospectively followed patients. Spine J Off J N Am Spine So 8(2):329–339. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Viswanathan A, Abd-El-Barr MM, Doppenberg E, Suki D, Gokaslan Z, Mendel E, Rao G, Rhines LD (2012) Initial experience with the use of an expandable titanium cage as a vertebral body replacement in patients with tumors of the spinal column: a report of 95 patients. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 21(1):84–92. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1882-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Waschke A, Kaczor S, Walter J, Duenisch P, Kalff R, Ewald C (2013) Expandable titanium cages for anterior column cervical reconstruction and their effect on sagittal profile: a review of 48 cases. Acta Neurochir 155(5):801–807. doi: 10.1007/s00701-013-1655-7, discussion 807 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Waschke A, Walter J, Duenisch P, Kalff R, Ewald C (2013) Anterior cervical intercorporal fusion in patients with osteoporotic or tumorous fractures using a cement augmented cervical plate system: first results of a prospective single-center study. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(3):E112–E117. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182764b37 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Zairi F, Aboukais R, Thines L, Allaoui M, Assaker R (2012) Relevance of expandable titanium cage for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 21(8):1545–1550. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2380-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Zhang HY, Thongtrangan I, Le H, Park J, Kim DH (2005) Expandable cage for cervical spine reconstruction. J Kor Neurosurg Soc 38:435–441Google Scholar
- 47.Zhang Y, Quan Z, Zhao Z, Luo X, Tang K, Li J, Zhou X, Jiang D (2014) Evaluation of anterior cervical reconstruction with titanium mesh cages versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 cages after 1- or 2-level corpectomy for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study of 117 patients. PLoS One 9(5):e96265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096265 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar