Skip to main content

Radiolucent cage for cervical vertebral reconstruction: A prospective study of 17 cases with 2-year minimum follow-up

European Spine Journal volume 13, pages 685–690 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

In cervical spondylotic myelopathy, extended anterior spinal cord decompression necessitates subsequent stable vertebral reconstruction. Reconstruction with an iliac crest graft and screw-plate fixation gives satisfactory clinical and radiological results, but they are often compromised by morbidity involving the bone harvest. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution to cervical reconstruction of a biocompatible, radiolucent cage combined with screw-plate fixation, making use of bone harvested in situ. This prospective study was performed between July 2000 and March 2001 in eight women and nine men (mean age, 55 years) operated for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Situated between levels C3 and C6, the cage was inserted after one corporectomy in ten patients, two corporectomies in five patients, and three corporectomies in two patients. The cage consisted of a polyester mesh impregnated with poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) conferring temporary rigidity to the cage during bony fusion. Clinical and radiological follow-up (plain films, computed tomographic reconstruction in three cases) was performed at 2 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months and 36 months, postoperatively, with a mean followup of 30 months. Functional results were evaluated according to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association’s scoring system. An independent surgeon assessed the radiological evidence of anterior cervical fusion using the grades proposed by Bridwell [6]. Every patient experienced neurological recovery. At last follow-up, radiological findings were consistent with grade I (complete fusion) in five cases, grade II (probable fusion) in ten cases, grade III (radiolucent halo in favor of non fusion) in one case, and grade IV (graft lysis) in one case with persistent neck pain. In three cases there was screw breakage (two grade II, one grade IV). None of these cases required surgical revision at latest follow-up. In extensive spinal cord decompression through an anterior approach, cervical reconstruction using the present type of cage can achieve clinical results comparable to conventional techniques. The rigidity of the cage meets biomechanical imperatives. Its radiolucency permits one to monitor the course of consolidation, contrary to metal cages. The cases of probable non-fusion and screw breakage were not accompanied by signs of instability on the flexion extension films. This cage meets the biologic and biomechanical imperatives of cervical reconstruction. It obviates complications involving bone harvest.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H et al (2002) Healing of autologous bone in a titanium mesh cage used in anterior column reconstruction after total spondylectomy. Spine 27(13): E329–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J (1995) Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion: A prospective multicenter study. Spine 20: 2211–2216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Arlington ED, Smith WJ, Chambers HG et al (1996) Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting. Clin Orthop 329: 300–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey RW, Bagdley CE (1960) Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. Am J Orthop 42A: 565–594

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bolher J (1979) Anterior plate stabilization for fracture-dislocations of the lower cervical spine. J Trauma 20: 203–205

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K, (1995) Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine 20(12): 1410–1418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Burchardt H (1987) Biology of bone transplantation. Orthop Clin North Am 18: 187–196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg 15: 602–617

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cloward RB (1961) Treatment of acute fractures and fracture dislocations of the cervical spine by vertebral body fusion. J Neurosurg 18: 201–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cloward RB (1971) Complications of anterior cervical disc operation and their treatment. Surgery 69: 175–182

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Das K, Couldwell WT, Sava G, Taddonio RF (2000) Use of cylindrical titanium mesh and locking plates in anterior cervical fusion. J Neurosurgery 94 [Suppl 1]: 174–178

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eck KR, Bridwell KH, Ungacta FF, Lapp MA, Lenke LG, Riew KD (2000) Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year followup. Spine 25: 2407–2415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Friedlaender GE, Huo M (1991) Bone grafts and bone graft substitutes. In: Frymoyer JW (ed) The adult spine: principles and practice. Raven Press, New York, pp 565–574

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hasegawa K, Abe M, Washio T, Hara T (2001) An experimental study on the interface strength between titanium mesh cage and vertebra in reference to vertebral bone mineral density. Spine 26(8): 957–963

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y (1983) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 8: 693–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hollowell JP, Vollmer DG, Wilson CR et al (1996) Biomechanical analysis of thoracolumbar interbody constructs. How important is the endplate? Spine 21(9): 1032–1036

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Klemme WR, Cunningham BW, Polly DW (2002) Microradiographic and histopathologic findings in a human cage expiant after two-level corpectomy: a case report. Spine 27(1): E15–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Majd ME, Vadhava M, Holt RT (1999) Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine 24(15)

  19. Riew KD, Rhee JM (2002) The use of titanium mesh cages in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop 394: 47–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96: 223–224

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sénégas J (1991) L’arthrodèse antérieure du rachis cervical inférieur. Acta Orthop Belg 57 [Suppl l]: 108–114

    Google Scholar 

  22. Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD (2003) Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for singlelevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 28(2): 134–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Simmons EH, Bhalla SK (1969) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 51: 225–237

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Togawa D, Bauer TW, Brantigan JW, Lowery GL (2001) Bone graft incorporation in radiographically successful human intervertebral body fusion cages. Spine 26: 2744–2750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. van Dijk M, Smit TH, Sugihara S, Burger EH, Wuisman PL (2002) The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion. An in vivo model using poly(L-lactic acid) and titanium cages. Spine 27(7): 682–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Verbiest H (1969) Anterolateral operations for fractures and dislocations in the middle and lower parts of the cervical spine. Report of a series of fortyseven cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51: 1489–1530

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams JL, Allen MB, Harkess JW (1986) Late results of cervical discectomy and interbody fusion: Some factors influencing the results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50: 277–286

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zdeblick TA, Ducker TB (1991) The use of freeze-dried allograft bone for anterior cervical fusions. Spine 16: 726–729

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unité de Pathologie Rachidienne, CHU-Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

    C. H. Söderlund, V. Pointillart, M. Pedram, G. Andrault & J. M. Vital

  2. Unité de Pathologie Rachidienne, Hôpital Pellegrin-Tripode, Place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33000, Bordeaux, France

    C. H. Söderlund

Authors
  1. C. H. Söderlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Pointillart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Pedram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Andrault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. M. Vital
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. H. Söderlund.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Söderlund, C.H., Pointillart, V., Pedram, M. et al. Radiolucent cage for cervical vertebral reconstruction: A prospective study of 17 cases with 2-year minimum follow-up. Eur Spine J 13, 685–690 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0747-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0747-8

Keywords

  • Cervical myelopathy
  • Cervical reconstruction
  • Mesh cage
  • Corporectomy
  • Fusion