Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Autograft versus interbody fusion cage without plate fixation in the cervical spine: a randomized clinical study using radiostereometry

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A primary object with a fusion cage is avoidance of graft collapse with subsequent subsidence and malalignment of the cervical spine that is observed after bone grafting alone. No randomized studies exist that demonstrate the difference between these two methods in terms of graft subsidence and angulation of the fused segment. The size of the study population was calculated to be 24 patients to reach a significant difference at the 95% CI level. Patients with one-level cervical radiculopathy scheduled for surgery were randomized to anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with autograft or to fusion cage, both without plate fixation. Tantalum markers were inserted in the two adjacent vertebrae at the end of surgery. Radiostereometry was performed immediately postoperatively and at regular intervals for 2 years. Questionnaires were used to evaluate the clinical outcome and an unbiased observer graded the outcome after 2 years. No significant differences were found between the two methods after 2 years in regard of narrowing of the disc space (mean 1.7 and 1.4 mm, respectively) or deformation of the fused segment into flexion (mean 7.7° and 4.6°, respectively). Patients in the cage group had a significantly better clinical outcome. The findings of subsidence and flexion deformation of the fused segment after 2 years seem to be of no clinical importance after one-level cervical disc surgery. However, in multi-level surgery using the same methods, an additive effect of the deformations of the fused segments may affect the clinical outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bagby G (1998) Arhtrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopaedics 11:931–934

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beynnnon B, Krag M, Pope M, et al. (1988) Fatigue evaluation of a new spinal implant. Proceedings of the ASME 56–57

  3. Bishop RC, Moore KA, Hadley MN (1996) Anterior interbody fusion using autogenic and allogenic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg 85(2):206–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohlmann H, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK (1993) Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 75:1298–1307

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brantigan J, Steffee A, Geiger J (1991) A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Mechanical testing. Spine 16:S277–S282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bärlocher CB, Barth A, Krauss JK, Binggeli R, Seiler RW (2002) Comparative evaluation of microdiscectomy only, autograft fusion, polymethylmethacrylate interposition, and threaded titanium cage fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: a prospective randomized study in 125 patients. Neurosurg Focus 12:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cauthen JC, Theis RP, Allen AT (2003) Anterior cervical fusion: a comparison of cage, dowel and dowel-plate constructs. Spine 2:106–117

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–614

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Connolly PJ, Esses SI, Kostuik JP (1996) Anterior cervical fusion: outcome analysis of patients fused with and without anterior cervical plates. J Spinal Disord 3:202–206

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dan NG (2000) Spinal angulation after anterior discectomy and graftless fusion. J Clin Neurosci 7(2):124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dowd GC, Wirth FP (1999) Anterior cervical discectomy: is fusion necessary? J Neurosurg 90(1 suppl):8–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Eysel P, Furderer S, Rompe JD, Zollner J (2000) Initial instability of different cages for fusion of the cervical spine. Zentralbl Neurochir 4:171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, Van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: Single-level and bi-level. Spine 24:2673–2678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gore DR, Sepic SB (1998) Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease. A report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine 23(19):2047–2051

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene DL, Crawford NR, Chamberlain RH, Park SC, Crandall D (2003) Biomechanical comparison of cervical interbody cage versus structural bone graft. Spine 4:262–269

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL (2000) A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine 20:2646–2654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Schafer J, Born C, Duda G, Haas NP, Mittlmeier T (2001) Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine 17:1850–1857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kärrholm J, Herberts P, Hultmark P, Malchau H, Nivbrant B, Thanner J (1997) Radiostereometry of hip prostheses. Review of methodology and clinical results. Clin Orthop 344:94–110

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lopez-Olivia Munoz F, Garcia de las Heras B, Concejero Lopez V, Asenjo Siguero JJ (1998) Comparison of three techniques of anterior fusion in single-level cervical disc herniation. Eur Spine J 6:512–516

    Google Scholar 

  20. Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B (1958) Cervical disc lesions. JAMA 166:23–28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips FM, Garfin SR (2005) Cervical disc replacement. Spine 17(Suppl):S27–S33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Savolainen S, Rinne J, Hernesniemi J (1998) A prospective randomized study of anterior single-level cervical disc options with long-term follow-up: surgical fusion is unnecessary. Neurosurgery 1:51–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Selvik G (1989) Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. A method for the study of kinematics of the skeletal system. Acta Orthop Scand 60(Suppl 232)

  24. Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD, Brislin BT, Leland JM, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ (2003) Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 2:134–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 40:607–623

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tureyen K (2003) Disc height loss after anterior cervical microdiscectomy with titanium intervertebral cage fusion. Acta Neurochirg 7:565–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vavruch L, Hedlund R, Javid D, Leszniewski W, Shalabi A (2002) A prospective randomized comparison between the cloward procedure and a carbo fibre cage in the cervical spine. Spine 16:1694–1701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. White AA, Jupiter J, Southwick WO, Panjabi MM (1973) An experimental study of the loadbearing capacity of three surgical constructions for the anterior spine fusions. Clin Orthop 91:21–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Goetz C, Claes L (2000) Subsidence resulting from simulated postoperative neck movements: an in vitro investigation with a new cervical fusion cage. Spine 21:2762–2770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes L (2000) Primary stabilizing effect of interbody fusion devices for the cervical spine: an in vitro comparison between three different cage types and bone cement. Eur Spine J 9:410–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zdeblick TA, Hughes SS, Riew KD, Bohlman HH (1997) Failed anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 4:523–532

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM (2003) Interbody cage devices. Spine 15S:S2–S7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zoëga B, Kärrholm J, Lind B (1998) One-level cervical spine fusion. A randomized study, with or without plate fixation, using radiostereometry in 27 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 69:363–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zoëga B, Kärrholm J, Lind B (1998) Plate fixation adds stability to 2 level anterior fusion in the cervical spine: A randomized study using radiostereometry. Eur Spine J 7:302–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zoëga B, Kärrholm J, Lind B (2003) Mobility provocation radiostereometry in anterior cervical spine fusions. Eur Spine J 12(6):631–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gröna stråket 8, 41345, Göteborg, Sweden

    Bengt I. Lind

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Björn Zoega

  3. Department of Neurology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

    Hans Rosén

Authors
  1. Bengt I. Lind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Björn Zoega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans Rosén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bengt I. Lind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lind, B.I., Zoega, B. & Rosén, H. Autograft versus interbody fusion cage without plate fixation in the cervical spine: a randomized clinical study using radiostereometry. Eur Spine J 16, 1251–1256 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0337-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0337-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation