Radiological Outcomes of Static vs Expandable Titanium Cages After Corpectomy

Lau, Darryl; Song, Yeohan; Guan, Zhe; Marca, Frank La; Park, Paul

doi:10.1227/neu.0b013e318282a558

Cited by 68 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrarily, Lau et al [25] compared subsidence rates between static and expandable cages throughout the spine in a retrospective cohort analysis and found that expandable cages had an increased odds ratio of subsidence at 1 and 12 months, and there was an increased risk of subsidence at 1 month with osteomyelitis, footplate-to-body ratio <0.5, no posterior fusion or fusion <2 levels above and below the corpectomy. The use of prongs on the cage end plate decreased the risk of subsidence.…”

Section: Subsidencementioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the use of expandable cages in the cervical spine

Elder

Kosztowski

et al. 2015

Neurosurg Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expandable vertebral body replacement cages (VBRs) have been widely used for reconstruction of the thoracolumbar spine following corpectomy. However, their use in the cervical spine is less common, and currently, no expandable cages on the market are cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the cervical spine. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review on the use of expandable cages in the treatment of cervical spine pathology with a focus on fusion rates, deformity correction, complications, and indications. A comprehensive Medline search was performed, and 24 applicable articles were identified and included in this review. The advantages of expandable cages include greater ease of implantation with less risk of damage to the end plate, less intraoperative manipulation of the device, and potentially greater control over lordosis. They may be particularly advantageous in cases with poor bone quality, such as patients with osteoporosis or metastatic tumors that have been radiated. However, there is a potential risk of overdistraction, which is increased in the cervical spine, their minimum height limits their use in cases with collapsed vertebra, and the amount of hardware in the expansion mechanism may limit the surface area available for fusion. The use of expandable VBRs are a valuable tool in the armamentarium for reconstruction of the anterior column of the cervical spine with an acceptable safety profile. Although expandable cervical cages are clearly beneficial in certain clinical situations, widespread use following all corpectomies is not justified due to their significantly greater cost compared to structural bone grafts or non-expandable VBRs, which can be utilized to achieve similar clinical outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Subsidencementioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the use of expandable cages in the cervical spine

Elder

Kosztowski

et al. 2015

Neurosurg Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5] A new advanced method is use of expandable titanium cages which allow easy replacement with in situ expansion and reproduction of the sagittal profile. [9][10][11][12][13] Stabilization can be achieved by additional anterior plating or posterior stabilization by a rod and screw system. Alternatively, a direct fixation of the cages with fixation wings is possible, a combination of two systems in one -cage and fixation system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure of an expandable cage-plate cervical vertebral body replacement: case report of a device related complication

Trieb

Koch

2017

Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is some evidence to suggest that despite the greater surface contact area, expandable cages have a trend for higher subsidence rates when compared to fixed cages [31][32]. Some biomechanical assessments of expandable cages suggest associated higher subsidence rates and intraoperative fractures during deployment [30][31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%