Advertisement

Options for Interbody Grafting

  • Azam Basheer
  • Mohammed Macki
  • Frank La MarcaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

While cervical pathology should adjudicate the approach to the spinal column, appropriate fusion constructs among anterior cervical diseases remain a point of contention in the literature. Although the role of the cervical interbody grafting remains a time-honored tool in fusion operations, the surgical armamentarium for stabilization of the anterior and middle column in the cervical spine has expanded to a myriad of materials and techniques. Cervical grafts/spacers alone have evolved exponentially over the decades as surgeons attempt to strike a perfect balance between the structural and biological roles of the interbody graft.

Keywords

Interbody graft Fusion Cervical Autograft Allograft 

References

  1. 1.
    Chau AM, Mobbs RJ. Bone graft substitutes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(4):449–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pal GP, Sherk HH. The vertical stability of the cervical spine. Spine. 1988;13(5):447–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robinson RA. Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1955;96:223–4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15(6):602–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frost HM. Wolff's law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 1994;64(3):175–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ruff C, Holt B, Trinkaus E. Who's afraid of the big bad Wolff?: “Wolff's law” and bone functional adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006;129(4):484–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J. Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. A prospective multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(20):2211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barlocher CB, Barth A, Krauss JK, Binggeli R, Seiler RW. 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. 2002;12(1):E4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothman RH, Simeone FA. The spine, vol. 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1982.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowe TG, Hashim S, Wilson LA, et al. A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(21):2389–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McAfee PC, Lee GA, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW. Anterior BAK instrumentation and fusion: complete versus partial discectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;394:55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song KJ, Choi BY. Current concepts of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a review of literature. Asian Spine J. 2014;8(4):531–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    White AA 3rd, Hirsch C. An experimental study of the immediate load bearing capacity of some commonly used iliac bone grafts. Acta Orthop Scand. 1971;42(6):482–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Younger EM, Chapman MW. Morbidity at bone graft donor sites. J Orthop Trauma. 1989;3(3):192–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD, et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(2):134–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heary RF, Schlenk RP, Sacchieri TA, Barone D, Brotea C. Persistent iliac crest donor site pain: independent outcome assessment. Neurosurgery. 2002;50(3):510–6; discussion 516–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tyerman SD, Terry BR, Findlay GP. Multiple conductances in the large K+ channel from Chara corallina shown by a transient analysis method. Biophys J. 1992;61(3):736–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jagannathan J, Shaffrey CI, Oskouian RJ, et al. Radiographic and clinical outcomes following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and allograft fusion without plate placement or cervical collar. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8(5):420–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zdeblick TA, Ducker TB. The use of freeze-dried allograft bone for anterior cervical fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(7):726–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Floyd T, Ohnmeiss D. A meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(5):398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young WF, Rosenwasser RH. An early comparative analysis of the use of fibular allograft versus autologous iliac crest graft for interbody fusion after anterior cervical discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(9):1123–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevenson S, Horowitz M. The response to bone allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(6):939–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;339:76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hamer AJ, Strachan JR, Black MM, Ibbotson CJ, Stockley I, Elson RA. Biochemical properties of cortical allograft bone using a new method of bone strength measurement. A comparison of fresh, fresh-frozen and irradiated bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(3):363–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asselmeier MA, Caspari RB, Bottenfield S. A review of allograft processing and sterilization techniques and their role in transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(2):170–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thalgott JS, Fritts K, Giuffre JM, Timlin M. Anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine with coralline hydroxyapatite. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(13):1295–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dai LY, Jiang LS. Anterior cervical fusion with interbody cage containing beta-tricalcium phosphate augmented with plate fixation: a prospective randomized study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(5):698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bruneau M, Nisolle JF, Gilliard C, Gustin T. Anterior cervical interbody fusion with hydroxyapatite graft and plate system. Neurosurg Focus. 2001;10(4):E8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van den Bent MJ, Oosting J, Wouda EJ, van Acker RE, Ansink BJ, Braakman R. Anterior cervical discectomy with or without fusion with acrylate. A randomized trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(7):834–9; discussion 840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boker DK, Schultheiss R, Probst EM. Radiologic long-term results after cervical vertebral interbody fusion with polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Neurosurg Rev. 1989;12(3):217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen JF, Wu CT, Lee SC, Lee ST. Use of a polymethylmethacrylate cervical cage in the treatment of single-level cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(1):24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yoo M, Kim WH, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ. Comparison between two different cervical interbody fusion cages in one level stand-alone ACDF: carbon Fiber composite frame cage versus Polyetheretherketone cage. Korean J Spine. 2014;11(3):127–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benzel EC. Spine surgery: techniques, complication avoidance, and management. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2005.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hsu WK, Nickoli MS, Wang JC, et al. Improving the clinical evidence of bone graft substitute technology in lumbar spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2012;2(4):239–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lied B, Roenning PA, Sundseth J, Helseth E. 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. 2010;10:10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Konig SA, Spetzger U. Distractable titanium cages versus PEEK cages versus iliac crest bone grafts for the replacement of cervical vertebrae. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2014;23(2):102–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kao TH, Wu CH, Chou YC, Chen HT, Chen WH, Tsou HK. Risk factors for subsidence in anterior cervical fusion with stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages: a review of 82 cases and 182 levels. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(10):1343–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kast E, Derakhshani S, Bothmann M, Oberle J. Subsidence after anterior cervical inter-body fusion. A randomized prospective clinical trial. Neurosurg Rev. 2009;32(2):207–14; discussion 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, et al. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1539–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(5):310–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ma R, Tang T. Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15(4):5426–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee JH, Jang HL, Lee KM, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the bioactivity of hydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone biocomposites created by cold spray technology. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(4):6177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bucy PC. Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary. Surg Neurol. 1982;17(5):369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Osseointegration: a requiem for the periodontal ligament. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1991;11(1):88–91.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yao C, Storey D, Webster TJ. Nanostructured metal coatings on polymers increase osteoblast attachment. Int J Nanomedicine. 2007;2(3):487–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Devine DM, Hahn J, Richards RG, Gruner H, Wieling R, Pearce SG. Coating of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants with titanium to improve bone apposition. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101(4):591–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kienle A, Graf N, Wilke HJ. Does impaction of titanium-coated interbody fusion cages into the disc space cause wear debris or delamination? Spine J. 2016;16(2):235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lowe TG, Tahernia AD. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;394:64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vaccaro AR, Sahni D, Pahl MA, et al. Long-term magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of bioresorbable anterior cervical plate resorption following fusion for degenerative and traumatic disk disruption. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(18):2091–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wuisman PI, Smit TH. Bioresorbable polymers: heading for a new generation of spinal cages. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(2):133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Palissery V, Mulholland RC, McNally DS. The implications of stress patterns in the vertebral body under axial support of an artificial implant. Med Eng Phys. 2009;31(7):833–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Serra T, Capelli C, Toumpaniari R, et al. Design and fabrication of 3D-printed anatomically shaped lumbar cage for intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration treatment. Biofabrication. 2016;8(3):035001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Whatley BR, Kuo J, Shuai C, Damon BJ, Wen X. Fabrication of a biomimetic elastic intervertebral disk scaffold using additive manufacturing. Biofabrication. 2011;3(1):015004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryNeuroscience Institute, Henry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryHenry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations