MC+® and ROI-CTM cervical fusion cage for cervical spondylosis: comparison of early postoperative cervical stability and fusion rate

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.31.010

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical decompression and internal fixation is the most common treatment for cervical spondylosis at present. Low profile or zero notch internal fixation materials are constantly emerging in order to reduce the effect of titanium plate thickness on the esophagus and pharynx, and to simplify the operation procedure. The self-locking interbody fusion MC+® and ROI-CTM provides a solution of titanium plate notch effect and more simple operation methods for anterior cervical operation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on cervical stability, fusion rate and clinical efficacy by anterior cervical decompression and internal fixation using various self-locking interbody fusion MC+® or ROI-CTM to treat cervical spondylosis.
METHODS: From June to September 2013, we treated 36 cervical spondylosis patients by anterior cervical
decompression and internal fixation. According to different types of intervertebral fusion device, the patients were divided into two groups: MC+® group and ROI-CTM group. Each patient underwent cervical anteroposterior and lateral radiographs, lateral flexion extension radiographs, CT scanning before operation, at 3 days, and 3 months after operation. Cervical curvature, intervertebral height, vertebral angle displacement and horizontal displacement were measured. Cervical pain visual analog scale score and Bazaz dysphagia score were evaluated.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In both groups, cervical curvature and intervertebral space height showed significantly increases after operation (P < 0.05), but no significant difference in cervical curvature and intervertebral space height was detected between two groups at 3 days or 3 months after operation (P > 0.05). In MC+® group, angle displacement and horizontal displacement showed significant increases in 3 days after operation (P < 0.05), but angle displacement and horizontal displacement at 3 months after operation showed significantly decrease compared with those of before operation and 3 months after operation (P < 0.05). In ROI-CTM group, angle displacement and horizontal displacement showed a marked decline at 3 days and 3 months after operation. Angle displacement and horizontal displacement were significantly higher in MC+® group than in the ROI-CTM group at 3 days or 3 months. No significant differences in fusion rate were detected between both groups at 3 months (P > 0.05). No significant differences in cervical pain visual analog scale score and Bazaz dysphagia score were detectable between both groups (P > 0.05). These data indicated that anterior cervical decompression and internal fixation combined with MC+® or ROI-CTM cervical fusion cage for single-segment cervical spondylosis has reliable clinical therapeutic effects, and the operation is simple; uncomfortable throat pain is less. MC+® cage was relatively cheap. The combination with cervical external fixation can achieve the requirement of vertebral stability. ROI-CTM cage can achieve satisfactory postoperative immediate stability, and is a satisfactory choice for treating cervical spondylosis. In conclusion, the two kinds of locking fusion cage have their advantages and disadvantages. A suitable fusion cage should be selected according to patients’ economic situation and vertebral stability requirements.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: cervical vertebrae, spinal fusion, internal fixators, pain measurement

CLC Number:

R318

Zhang Wei-hong, Yuan Shuo, Meng Chun-yang, Gao Feng, Yuan Wen. MC+® and ROI-CTM cervical fusion cage for cervical spondylosis: comparison of early postoperative cervical stability and fusion rate [J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(31): 4973-4979.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1] Jankowitz BT, Gerszten PC. Decompression for cervical myelopathy. Spine J. 2006;11(6):317-322.
[2] Gok B, Sciubba DM, McLoughlin GS, et al.Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy with anterior compression:a review of 67 cases. Neurosurg Spine. 2008; 9(2):152-157.
[3] Dean CL, Gabriel TP, Cassinelli EH, et al.Degengerative spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine:analysis of 58 patients treatment with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine. 2009;9(6): 439-446.
[4] 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.
[5] Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent tothe site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81: 519-528.
[6] Yue WM, Brodner W, Highland TR. Persistent swallowing and voice problems after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion . Eur Spine J. 2005;7:677-682.
[7] 王少波,王圣林.颈椎前路手术后吞咽困难的原因分析[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2006,12(14):913-916.
[8] 祁敏,梁磊,新伟,等.颈前路多节段融合术后吞咽困难的原因分析[J].中华骨科杂志,2013,33(5):467-472.
[9] Goffin J, Casey A,Kehr P, et al. Prelimiary clinical experience with theBryancervical disc prosthesis.Neurosurg. 2002;51(3): 840-847.
[10] Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Associated Complications. Spine. 2007;(21):2310-2317.
[11] Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, et al.Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 ;4(2):98-105.
[12] Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P. Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(1):31-35.
[13] Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, et al. Clinical significance of heterotopic ossificationin cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;57: 759-763.
[14] Heidecke V, Burkert W, Brucke M, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease- clinical results and functional outcome at two yearsin patients implanted with the Bryan+ cervical disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008;150:453-459.
[15] Wang ZD, Zhu RF, Yang HL, et al. The application of a zero-profile implant in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;8 (13):00429-00433E.
[16] Kulkarni AG, Hee HT, Wong HK. Solis cage (PEEK) for anterior cervical fusion: preliminary radiological results with emphasis on fusion and subsidence. Spine J. 2007;7(2): 205-209.
[17] 华江,刘福存,王玮. ROI椎间融合器行前路颈椎间盘切除融合术治疗颈椎退行性病变早期临床结果[J].浙江中医药大学学报, 2013,37(7):877-880.
[18] 徐广辉,贾连顺.颈前路减压融合术后植骨融合的影像学评价方法及标准[J].中华外科杂志,2009,12(23):1824-1825.
[19] Lin CN, Wu YC, Wang NP, et al. Preliminary experience with anterior interbody titanium cage fusion for treatment of cervical disc disease. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2003; 19(5): 208-216.
[20] Morgan JP, Asfora WT. Extreme multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. S D Med. 2013;66(7):271-279.
[21] 祁敏,陈华江,杨立利.采用新型Zero-p颈椎椎间融合器置入治疗颈椎病的近期疗效分析[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2012,20(24): 2232-2236.
[22] 贾龙,郑燕平,刘新宇. 颈前路减压cage融合术与自体髂骨块植骨钛板内固定术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的中期疗效[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2011;21(1):28-32.
[23] Katsumi Y, Honma T, Nakamura T. Analysis of cervical instability resulting from laminectomies for removal of spine cord tumor. Spine. 1989; 14(11): 1171-1176.
[24] Lowery GL, McDonough RF. The significance of hardware failure in anterior cervical plate fixation. Patients with 2- to 7-year. Spine.1998;23(2):181-186.
[25] Geisler FH, Caspar W, Pitzen T. Reoperation in patients after anterior cervical plate stabilization in degenerative diseas. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(8):911-920.
[26] Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, et al. Outcomes of Interbody Fusion Cages Used in 1 and 2-levels Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Titanium Cages Versus Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(5):310-316.