Influence of cervical bone mineral density on cage subsidence in patients following stand-alone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

• Verfasst von: Brenke, Christopher [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Scharf, Johann [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Weiß, Christel [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Influence of cervical bone mineral density on cage subsidence in patients following stand-alone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
• Verf.angabe: Christopher Brenke, Martin Dostal, Johann Scharf, Christel Weiß, Kirsten Schmieder, Martin Barth
• Jahr: 2015
• Jahr des Originals: 2014
• Umfang: 9 S.
• Fussnoten: Published online: 19 December 2014 ; Gesehen am 06.09.2017
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: European spine journal
• Ort Quelle: Berlin : Springer, 1992
• Jahr Quelle: 2015
• Band/Heft Quelle: 24(2015), 12, Seite 2832-2840
• ISSN Quelle: 1432-0932
• DOI: doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3725-9
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1563258854

Abstract

PurposeAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common procedure for the treatment of cervical degenerative diseases. However, cage subsidence remains a frequent problem. We therefore investigated if cage design and site-specific bone mineral density (BMD) contribute to the rate and direction of subsidence following ACDF.MethodsPatients were prospectively included and received two different cages (groups 1 and 2) using minimization randomization. The degree and direction of cage subsidence were determined using plain radiographs. Neck pain intensity on the visual analogue scale (VAS), the neck disability index (NDI), and the patient satisfaction index were recorded up to 12 months after surgery.Results88 patients were analysed with a mean age of 53.7 ± 11.8 years. BMD values decreased in craniocaudal direction from 302.0 ± 62.2 to 235.5 ± 38.9 mg/cm3. Both groups showed significant height gain after the operation (both p < 0.001), followed by height loss at 3 months (both p < 0.05) and at 3-12 months after the operation (both p > 0.05). Both groups showed improvement of VAS neck pain intensity (both p < 0.05) and NDI (both p < 0.05). The direction of cage subsidence was similar, no correlations were found between cage subsidence and BMD or various clinical parameters.ConclusionsImplant geometry of both cages and variations of the operative procedure promoted a relatively high degree of cage subsidence. Further studies are necessary to identify a relation of BMD and subsidence using optimized implant geometry and by controlling additional intraoperative variables.