Polyetheretherketone Cage filled with Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate versus Autogenous Tricortical Iliac Bone Graft in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Huh, Jae Won; Oh, Jong Yang; Chough, Chung Kee; Cho, Chul Bum; Joo, Won Il; Park, Hae Kwan

doi:10.14245/kjs.2011.8.3.165

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many authors reported that the clinical outcomes between the stand-alone cages and the anterior cervical plates for cervical degenerative disease were similar 13 19 20 32) . Our study also showed no statistically different between 2 groups on pain score improvement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand-Alone Cages for Anterior Cervical Fusion: Are There No Problems?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThere are complications in stand-alone cage assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), such as cage subsidence and kyphosis. Here we report our clinical result on ACDF, comparing with stand-alone cages and with cervical plate system for degenerative cervical spine diseases.MethodsPatients with degenerative cervical disease who were diagnosed and treated in Konyang University Hospital between January 2004 and December 2014 were included in this study. Patients who had operation in single level ACDF were selected. Patients scored the degree of pain using visual analog scale before and after the surgery. Subsidence was defined as ≥3-mm decrease of the segmental height, and cervical kyphosis was defined as progression of ≥5° at 12 months after postoperative follow-up compared to that measured at the immediate postoperative period.ResultsA total of 81 patients were enrolled for this study. Forty-five patients were included in a cervical plate group and the others were in stand-alone cage group. There was no statistical difference in pain score between the 2 groups. Segmental subsidence was observed in 7 patients (15.6%) in plate-assisted cervical fusion group, and 13 patients (36.1%) in stand-alone cage group. Segmental kyphosis was observed in 4 patients (8.9%) in plate-assisted cervical fusion group, and 10 patients (27.8%) in stand-alone cage group. There was statistical difference between the 2 groups.ConclusionThere was no difference in pain between 2 groups. But stand-alone case group showed higher incidence rate than plate-assisted cervical fusion group in segmental subsidence and cervical kyphosis. When designing cervical fusion, more attention should be given selecting the surgical technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand-Alone Cages for Anterior Cervical Fusion: Are There No Problems?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many authors reported that the clinical outcomes between the stand-alone cage and the anterior cervical plate for cervical disc disease were similar 13 , 16 , 17 , 33) . This current study including Zero-profile devices found that there was no significant clinical difference for a single level cervical disease among them (Group A, B and C) according to the Odom's criteria ( Table 3 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Postoperative subsidence was defined as any settlement in the disc height of at least 3 mm on the lateral radiographs 16) .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors reported that the clinical outcomes between the stand-alone cages and the anterior cervical plates for cervical disc disease were similar 13 , 16 , 17 , 33) . There are some articles about the Zero-profile devices 3 , 4 , 8 , 12 , 15 , 18 , 23 , 24 , 29) or focusing dysphagia in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion 3 , 34 , 41) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surgical Outcome of a Zero-profile Device Comparing with Stand-alone Cage and Anterior Cervical Plate with Iliac Bone Graft in the Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Shin

Cho

2014

Korean J Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveA Zero-profile device is a cervical stand-alone cage with integrated segmental fixation device. We characteristically evaluated the radiological changes as well as clinical outcomes in the application of Zero-profile devices compared with stand-alone cages and anterior cervical plates with iliac bone grafts for the cervical disease.MethodsRetrospectively, total 60 patients at least more than one year follow-up were enrolled. Twenty patients were treated with Zero-profile devices (Group A), twenty patients with stand-alone cages (Group B) and twenty patients with anterior cervical plates and iliac bone grafts (Group C) for a single level cervical disease. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by Odom's criteria and Bazaz-Yoo dysphagia index. The radiologic parameters were by subsidence and the changes of the midpoint interbody height (IBH), the segmental kyphotic angle (SKA), the overall kyphotic angle (OKA) in index level.ResultsAlthough there was no significant clinical difference according to the Odom's criteria among them(p=0.766), post-operative dysphagia was significantly decreased in the Group A and B compared with the Group C (p=0.04). From the immediate postoperative to the last follow-up time, the mean change of IBH decrement and SKA increment were significant in the Group B compared with the Group A (p=0.025, p=0.033) and the Group C (p=0.001, p=0.000). The subsidence rate was not significant among all groups (p=0.338).ConclusionThis Zero-profile device is a valuable alternative to the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a low incidence of postoperative dysphagia and without segmental kyphotic change.

show abstract

“…In RCTs, the incidence was 8% (14/172), but it was 22% (24/ 107) in non-randomised studies. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] A systematic review was also conducted for cost-effectiveness (Table 1, Topic 10) and found that costs were variable across studies and appeared to be locally dependent. There was no data to inform the use of different osteobiologics in patients with different comorbidities.…”

Section: Autograft Versus Cage With Osteobiologicmentioning

confidence: 99%

AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases

Meisel,

Jain,

et al. 2024

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design Guideline Objectives To develop an international guideline (AOGO) about the use of osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative spine conditions. Methods The guideline development process was guided by AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative (KF Degen) and followed the Guideline International Network McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. The process involved 73 participants with expertise in degenerative spine diseases and surgery from 22 countries. Fifteen systematic reviews were conducted addressing respective key topics and evidence was collected. The methodologist compiled the evidence into GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. Guideline panel members judged the outcomes and other criteria and made the final recommendations through consensus. Results Five conditional recommendations were created. A conditional recommendation is about the use of allograft, autograft or a cage with an osteobiologic in primary ACDF surgery. Other conditional recommendations are about the use of osteobiologic for single- or multi-level ACDF, and for hybrid construct surgery. It is suggested that surgeons use other osteobiologics rather than human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) in common clinical situations. Surgeons are recommended to choose 1 graft over another or 1 osteobiologic over another primarily based on clinical situation, and the costs and availability of the materials. Conclusion This AOGO guideline is the first to provide recommendations for the use of osteobiologics in ACDF. Despite the comprehensive searches for evidence, there were few studies completed with small sample sizes and primarily as case series with inherent risks of bias. Therefore, high-quality clinical evidence is demanded to improve the guideline.

show abstract

Polyetheretherketone Cage filled with Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate versus Autogenous Tricortical Iliac Bone Graft in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Cited by 6 publications

References 29 publications

Stand-Alone Cages for Anterior Cervical Fusion: Are There No Problems?

Stand-Alone Cages for Anterior Cervical Fusion: Are There No Problems?

Surgical Outcome of a Zero-profile Device Comparing with Stand-alone Cage and Anterior Cervical Plate with Iliac Bone Graft in the Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About