Effect of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 intervertebral fusion cage shape on the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

doi:10.12307/2023.832

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Current studies have reported that interbody fusion materials are one of the factors affecting the postoperative efficacy of patients with cervical spondylosis, but there are few reports on the postoperative efficacy of the same materials with different geometric shapes in patients with cervical spondylosis.
OBJECTIVE: To observe the effect of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 intervertebral fusion cage shape on the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
METHODS: Clinical data of 122 patients with single-segment cervical spondylosis who were admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University from January 2016 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into a columnar group (n=60) and a horseshoe group (n=62) according to the shape of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 intervertebral fusion (cage). The visual analog scale score, neck disability index, fusion segmental height, C2-7 angle, segmental sagittal alignment, and intervertebral fusion were compared between the two groups before and after the operation.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Compared with that before operation, the visual analog scale scores of the two groups at 2 days, 1 year and the last follow-up decreased (P < 0.05), and the influence of neck disability index at 6 months and the last follow-up decreased (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in visual analog scale score and neck disability index before and after surgery (P > 0.05). (2) The fusion rate of the horseshoe group at 6 and 12 months after surgery was significantly higher than that of the columnar group (P < 0.05). The modified Brantigan score of the horseshoe group at 6 and 12 months after operation was lower than that of the columnar group (P < 0.05). (3) The extent of cage subsidence in patients in the horseshoe group was lower than that in the columnar group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the extent of cage subsidence between the two groups (P > 0.05). (4) There were no significant differences in C2-7 angle, segmental sagittal alignment, and fusion segmental height between the two groups before and after surgery (P > 0.05). (5) The results show that the horseshoe and columnar nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 intervertebral fusion cage can obtain good efficacy in the single-segment anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, but the horseshoe nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 intervertebral fusion cage can improve the early fusion rate and reduce the subsidence of the intervertebral space.

Key words: cervical spondylosis, anterior cervical fusion, intervertebral fusion cage, shape, nano-hydroxyapatite, polyamide-66

CLC Number:

Xu Shicai, Ma Fei, Tang Chao, Liao Yehui, Tang Qiang, Chen Shiyu, Li Yang, Zhou Jiajun, Wang Qing, Zhong Dejun. Effect of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 intervertebral fusion cage shape on the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2023, 27(30): 4830-4835.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1] CLOWARD RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15(6):602-617.
[2] JACOBS W, WILLEMS PC, VAN LIMBEEK J, et al. Single or double-level anterior interbody fusion techniques for cervical degenerative disc disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):Cd004958.
[3] SMITH GW, ROBINSON RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958;40-a(3):607-624.
[4] YUE WM, BRODNER W, HIGHLAND TR. Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(19):2138-2144.
[5] 刘浩,盛厦庆,杨毅,等.颈椎前路钩椎关节融合与传统椎骨终板间融合的融合时效比较：一项前瞻性随机对照研究[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2022,32(5):410-417.
[6] HU B, YANG X, HU Y, et al. The n-HA/PA66 Cage Versus the PEEK Cage in Anterior Cervical Fusion with Single-Level Discectomy During 7 Years of Follow-Up. World Neurosurg. 2019;123:e678-e684.
[7] LIU JM, XIONG X, PENG AF, et al. A comparison of local bone graft with PEEK cage versus iliac bone graft used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;155:30-35.
[8] PARK S, LEE DH, HWANG S, et al. Feasibility of local bone dust as a graft material in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019:1-6.bdoi: 10.3171/2019.3.SPINE181416
[9] HU B, WANG L, SONG Y, et al. A comparison of long-term outcomes of nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage and titanium mesh cage in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: A clinical follow-up study of least 8 years. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019;176:25-29.
[10] WANG X, LI Y, WEI J, et al. Development of biomimetic nano-hydroxyapatite/poly(hexamethylene adipamide) composites. Biomaterials. 2002;23(24):4787-4791.
[11] YANG X, CHEN Q, LIU L, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical fusion by titanium mesh cage versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide cage following single-level corpectomy. Int Orthop. 2013;37(12):2421-2427.
[12] KIM HS, SONG JS, HEO W, et al. Comparative Study between a Curved and a Wedge PEEK Cage for Single-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Interbody Fusion. Korean J Spine. 2012;9(3):181-186.
[13] KELLGREN JH, LAWRENCE JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16(4):494-502.
[14] MA F, XU S, LIAO Y, et al. Using a mixture of local bone dust and morselized bone as graft materials in single- and double-level ACDF. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):510.
[15] BRANTIGAN JW, STEFFEE AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(14):2106-2107.
[16] 唐强,廖烨晖,唐超,等.椎间融合器的置入方式对腰椎融合效果的影响[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2019,29(12):1071-1079.
[17] STEFFEN T, TSANTRIZOS A, AEBI M. Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(9):1077-1084.
[18] LU T, LIU C, YANG B, et al. Single-Level Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion Using a New 3D-Printed AnatomyAdaptive Titanium Mesh Cage for Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy and Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Retrospective Case Series Study. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:3105-3114.
[19] CHEN Y, CHEN D, GUO Y, et al. Subsidence of titanium mesh cage: a study based on 300 cases. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(7):489-492.
[20] DAS K, COULDWELL WT, SAVA G, et al. Use of cylindrical titanium mesh and locking plates in anterior cervical fusion. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2001;94(1 Suppl):174-178.
[21] 陈豪,王利民,谭洪宇,等.比较纳米羟基磷灰石/聚酰胺66人工椎体与自体髂骨在颈椎前路减压融合中的应用[J].中国组织工程研究与临床康复,2011,15(12):2195-2198.
[22] YANG X, LIU L, SONG Y, et al. Outcome of single level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage. Indian J Orthop. 2014;48(2):152-157.
[23] QIAN X, YUAN F, ZHIMIN Z, et al. Dynamic perfusion bioreactor system for 3D culture of rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells on nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 scaffold in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101(6):893-901.
[24] ABD EL-FATTAH H, HELMY Y, EL-KHOLY B, et al. In vivo animal histomorphometric study for evaluating biocompatibility and osteointegration of nano-hydroxyapatite as biomaterials in tissue engineering. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2010;22(4):241-250.
[25] 欧云生,蒋电明,权正学,等.n-HA/PA66复合生物活性融合器在颈椎病前路减压融合术中的初步应用研究[J].生物医学工程学杂志, 2010,27(2):324-327.
[26] HARA T, OHARA Y, ABE E, et al. Cervical endplate bone density distribution measured by CT osteoabsorptiometry and direct comparison with mechanical properties of the endplate. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(9):2557-2564.
[27] CHENG CC, ORDWAY NR, ZHANG X, et al. Loss of cervical endplate integrity following minimal surface preparation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(17):1852-1855.
[28] LOU J, LIU H, RONG X, et al. Geometry of inferior endplates of the cervical spine. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;142:132-136.