Vol 53, No 5 (2019)
Research paper
Published online: 2019-09-20
Submitted: 2018-12-14
Accepted: 2019-08-24
Get Citation

Biomechanical evaluation of single- and multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with polyetheretherketone cages: radiological and clinical outcomes

Gabriela Zapolska, Michał Kwiatkowski, Grzegorz Turek, Zenon Mariak, Adam Hermanowicz
DOI: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2019.0040
·
Pubmed: 31538657
·
Neurol Neurochir Pol 2019;53(5):358-362.

paid access

Vol 53, No 5 (2019)
Research paper
Published online: 2019-09-20
Submitted: 2018-12-14
Accepted: 2019-08-24

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of single- and multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with standalone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages, with particular emphasis on the risk of secondary adjacent segment disease.

Materials and methods. This retrospective study included 30 patients with single- or multi-level cervical disc herniation. Before the ACDF, and one year thereafter, the patients underwent clinical and radiological evaluation including determination of cervical pain severity with a numerical rating scale (NRS), and a survey with a Polish adaptation of the neck disability index questionnaire (NDI-PL). Biomechanical parameters of the cervical spine were determined using the Cobb method.

Results. One year after ACDF, all patients had achieved complete fusions, and 97% showed a significant reduction of pain severity. Also, a significant decrease in all NDI-PL indices was observed. A significant decrease in overall cervical spine mobility coexisted with a significant increase in the mobility of the segment above the one operated upon and a non-significant decrease in the mobility of the segment below. No statistically significant change was found in the intervertebral disc space height (IVH) above and below the operated segment, and no evidence of degeneration within the segments adjacent to the operated one was documented.

Conclusion. One- and two-level ACDF with standalone PEEK cages provided high fusion rates. Surgical spondylosis contributed to a reduction of spinal mobility despite the hypermobility in adjacent spinal segments. No degeneration in adjacent spinal segments was documented within a year of ACDF, and the treatment seemed to improve patients’ quality of life.

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of single- and multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with standalone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages, with particular emphasis on the risk of secondary adjacent segment disease.

Materials and methods. This retrospective study included 30 patients with single- or multi-level cervical disc herniation. Before the ACDF, and one year thereafter, the patients underwent clinical and radiological evaluation including determination of cervical pain severity with a numerical rating scale (NRS), and a survey with a Polish adaptation of the neck disability index questionnaire (NDI-PL). Biomechanical parameters of the cervical spine were determined using the Cobb method.

Results. One year after ACDF, all patients had achieved complete fusions, and 97% showed a significant reduction of pain severity. Also, a significant decrease in all NDI-PL indices was observed. A significant decrease in overall cervical spine mobility coexisted with a significant increase in the mobility of the segment above the one operated upon and a non-significant decrease in the mobility of the segment below. No statistically significant change was found in the intervertebral disc space height (IVH) above and below the operated segment, and no evidence of degeneration within the segments adjacent to the operated one was documented.

Conclusion. One- and two-level ACDF with standalone PEEK cages provided high fusion rates. Surgical spondylosis contributed to a reduction of spinal mobility despite the hypermobility in adjacent spinal segments. No degeneration in adjacent spinal segments was documented within a year of ACDF, and the treatment seemed to improve patients’ quality of life.

Get Citation

Keywords

adjacent segment degeneration, adjacent segment disease, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion, cervical myelopathy, cervical radiculopathy, PEEK cages

About this article
Title

Biomechanical evaluation of single- and multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with polyetheretherketone cages: radiological and clinical outcomes

Journal

Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska

Issue

Vol 53, No 5 (2019)

Pages

358-362

Published online

2019-09-20

DOI

10.5603/PJNNS.a2019.0040

Pubmed

31538657

Bibliographic record

Neurol Neurochir Pol 2019;53(5):358-362.

Keywords

adjacent segment degeneration
adjacent segment disease
anterior cervical discectomy with fusion
cervical myelopathy
cervical radiculopathy
PEEK cages

Authors

Gabriela Zapolska
Michał Kwiatkowski
Grzegorz Turek
Zenon Mariak
Adam Hermanowicz

References (25)
  1. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004; 4(6 Suppl): 190S–194S.
  2. Litrico S, Lonjon N, Riouallon G, et al. French Society of Spine Surgery (SFCR). Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion: a multicenter retrospective study of 288 patients with long-term follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014; 100(6 Suppl): S305–S309.
  3. Carrier CS, Bono CM, Lebl DR. Evidence-based analysis of adjacent segment degeneration and disease after ACDF: a systematic review. Spine J. 2013; 13(10): 1370–1378.
  4. Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(1): 36–43.
  5. Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Matz PG, et al. Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Radiographic assessment of cervical subaxial fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 11(2): 221–227.
  6. Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, et al. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12(5): 513–516.
  7. Karikari IO, Jain D, Owens TR, et al. Impact of subsidence on clinical outcomes and radiographic fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014; 27(1): 1–10.
  8. Li J, Li Y, Kong F, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after single-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion: disc space distraction and its impact on clinical outcomes. J Clin Neurosci. 2015; 22(3): 566–569.
  9. Sugawara T. Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Disease: A Review. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2015; 55(7): 540–546.
  10. Maldonado CV, Paz RDR, Martin CB. Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 Suppl 3: 403–407.
  11. Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease--clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008; 150(5): 453–9; discussion 459.
  12. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, et al. Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(24): 2802–2806.
  13. Tortolani PJ, Cunningham BW, Eng M, et al. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(1): 82–88.
  14. Bydon M, Xu R, De la Garza-Ramos R, et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Incidence and clinical outcomes of patients requiring anterior versus posterior repeat cervical fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 2014; 5(Suppl 3): S74–S78.
  15. Anakwenze OA, Auerbach JD, Milby AH, et al. Sagittal cervical alignment after cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(19): 2001–2007.
  16. Lawrence BD, Hilibrand AS, Brodt ED, et al. Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(22 Suppl): S52–S64.
  17. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, et al. Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10(4): 320–324.
  18. Song KJ, Choi BW, Kim JK. Adjacent segment pathology following anterior decompression and fusion using cage and plate for the treatment of degenerative cervical spinal diseases. Asian Spine J. 2014; 8(6): 720–728.
  19. Ishihara H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion. Spine J. 2004; 4(6): 624–628.
  20. Park JB, Watthanaaphisit T, Riew KD. Timing of development of adjacent-level ossification after anterior cervical arthrodesis with plates. Spine J. 2007; 7(6): 633–636.
  21. Rao RD, Currier BL, Albert TJ, et al. Degenerative cervical spondylosis: clinical syndromes, pathogenesis, and management. Instr Course Lect. 2008; 57: 447–469.
  22. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, et al. Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(9): 1298–1307.
  23. Ferch RD, Shad A, Cadoux-Hudson TAD, et al. Anterior correction of cervical kyphotic deformity: effects on myelopathy, neck pain, and sagittal alignment. J Neurosurg. 2004; 100(1 Suppl Spine): 13–19.
  24. Dvorák J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, et al. Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(1): 120–127.
  25. Tęsiorowski M, Lipik E, Zarzycki D, et al. Wyniki leczenia jedno- i wielopoziomowej szyjnej choroby dyskowej z zastosowaniem sztucznego dysku szyjnego. J Orthop Trauma Surg Rel Res. ; 3(15): 55–61.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl