Skip to main content

Anterior Cervical Spinal Implants

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Orthopaedic Trauma Implantology
  • 28 Accesses

Abstract

There has been a significant evolution in spinal implants in the last few decades. The surgical trend changed from non-implant decompression to anterior cervical instrumented stabilization along with decompression or discectomy. Various anterior cervical plates, cages, expandable cages, zero profile anterior cervical cage with screws, and cervical artificial disc for cervical disc replacement have undergone significant modification with time in regard to implant design and material as well to ease the surgery and modify the outcome.

Anterior cervical non-locking plates were gradually replaced by locking anterior cervical plates due to screw back-out problems. Later cervical zero profile cage with screw devices came with the advantage of less adjacent soft tissue irritation. Similarly there is a continuous change in all implant designs.

Everyday new implants are available that claim better outcomes. In this chapter we have touched on the old implants along with the changes and newer implants which stood the test of time as well as the modifications to their design. Further research may find a better alternative and naturally with more modification and advancement newer innovative implants may replace the present ones in the future.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Moftakhar R, Trost GR. Anterior cervical plates: a historical perspective. J Neurosurg. 2004; https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2004.16.1.9.

  2. Dipaola CP, Jacobson JA, Awad H, Conrad BP. Screw orientation and plate type (variable- vs. fixed-angle) effect strength of fixation for in vitro biomechanical testing of the Synthes CSLP. Spine J. 2008;8(5):717–22. PMID: 17983846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bagby GW. Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics. 1988;11(6):931–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rao PJ, Walsh WR, Pellitier MH, Mobbs RJ. Spine interbody implants: material selection and modification, functionalization and bioactivation of surfaces to improve osseointegration. Orthop Surg. 2014;6(2):81–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12098.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Parsons JR, Bhayani S, Alexander H, Weiss AB. Carbon fiber debris within the synovial joint. A time-dependent mechanical and histologic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;196:69–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Orief T, Ramadan I, Seddik Z, Kamal M, Rahmany M, Takayasu M. Comparative evaluation of bone-filled Polymethylmethacrylate implant, autograft fusion and Polyetheretherketone cervical cage fusion for the treatment of single-level cervical disc disease. Asian J Neurosurg. 2010;5:46–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Han CM, Lee EJ, Kim HE, et al. The electron beam deposition of titanium on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and the resulting enhanced biological properties. Biomaterials. 2010;31:3465–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.12.030.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chong E, Pelletier MH, Mobbs RJ, Walsh WR. The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0546-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Daentzer D, Willbold E, Kalla K, Bartsch I, Masalha W, Hallbaum M, Hurschler C, Kauth T, Kaltbeitzel D, Hopmann C, Welke B. Bioabsorbable interbody magnesium-polymer cage: degradation kinetics, biomechanical stiffness, and histological findings from an ovine cervical spine fusion model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(20):E1220–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grob D, Daehn S, Mannion AF. Titanium mesh cages (TMC) in spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(3):211–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0748-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang X, Chen Q, Liu L, Song Y, Kong Q, Zeng J, Xue Y, Ren C. Comparison of anterior cervical fusion by titanium mesh cage versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide cage following single-level corpectomy. Int Orthop. 2013;37(12):2421–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2101-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Scholz M, Reyes PM, Schleicher P, Sawa AG, Baek S, Kandziora F, et al. A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device: biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):156–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ff9c4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Son DK, Son DW, Kim HS, Sung SK, Lee SW, Song GS. Comparative study of clinical and radiological outcomes of a zero-profile device concerning reduced postoperative Dysphagia after single level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2014;56(2):103–7. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2014.56.2.103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nambiar M, Phan K, Cunningham JE, Yang Y, Turner PL, Mobbs R. Locking stand-alone cages versus anterior plate constructs in single-level fusion for degenerative cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(9):2258–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5015-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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):558–63. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.C.01555.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Xiao Y, Shi Y, Li H, Kan X. Application of Zero-P on anterior cervical decompression and bone fusion. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2017;10(4):7077–83.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cabraja M, Abbushi A, Kroppenstedt S, Woiciechowsky C. Cages with fixation wings versus cages plus plating for cervical reconstruction after corpectomy – is there any difference? Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2010;71:59–63. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1246135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Awad AJ, Stidd DA, Alkhalili K, Eli IM, Baaj AA. Vertebral body reconstruction using expandable titanium cages after anterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review. Cureus. 2014;6(3):e165. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Anderson LD, D'alonzo RT. Fractures of the odontoid process of the axis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56(8):1663–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Azar FM, Canale ST, Beaty JH. Campbells operative orthopaedics, vol. 2. 13th ed; 2017. p. 1782.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Apfelbaum RI, Lonser RR, Veres R, Casey A. Direct anterior screw fixation for recent and remote odontoid fractures. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:227–36. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2000.93.2.0227.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tun K, Kaptanoglu E, Cemil B, Yorubulut M, Karahan ST, Tekdemir I. Anatomical study of axis for odontoid screw thickness, length and angle. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(2):271–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0814-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sung J-K. Anterior screw fixation using Herbert screw for type II odontoid process fractures. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2005;37:345–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chandra A, Moon S-J, Walker B, Yilmaz E, Moisi M, Johnson R. Postoperative intracranial migration of a C2 odontoid screw: A case report and literature review. Surg Neurol Int. 2019;10:173. https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_245_2019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Baaj AA, Mummaneni PV. Handbook of spine surgery-chapter-cervical arthroplasty (Thieme), p 277.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chang H-K, Huang W-C, Jau-Ching W, Tsung-Hsi T, Fay L-Y, Chang P-Y, Ching-Lan W, Chang H-C, Chen Y-C, Cheng H. Cervical arthroplasty for traumatic disc herniation: an age- and sex-matched comparison with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0692-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198–209. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Sarkar, S. (2023). Anterior Cervical Spinal Implants. In: Banerjee, A., Biberthaler, P., Shanmugasundaram, S. (eds) Handbook of Orthopaedic Trauma Implantology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7540-0_105

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7540-0_105

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7539-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7540-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics