To compare stability and subsidence associated with 3 types of cervical spine stabilisation.
Methods.
The C3 to C4 vertebrae of 28 Polish pigs were used. Pigs with intact vertebrae (group 1) underwent standard anterior cervical discectomy (group 2), followed by stabilisation using a cage alone (group 3), a cage with plate (group 4), or a plate-cage (group 5). Cervical spine stability and subsidence were compared in all 5 groups.
Results.
Stability was significantly increased after stabilisation by a cage with plate or a plate-cage, but not by a cage alone. The difference between stabilisation by a cage with plate and a plate-cage was not significant. Subsidence was maximal after the cage-alone stabilisation (3.1 mm), being 1.6 mm after the cage-with-plate and plate-cage stabilisations.
Conclusion.
Additional plating as a supplement to anterior interbody cervical cage stabilisation significantly improves segmental stability and subsidence.
Orozco-DelclosRLlovet-TapiesJ. Osteosyntesis en les fractures de rachis cervical note de technical [in French]. Rev Ortop Traum1970;14:285–8.
2.
CasparWBarbierDDKlaraPM. Anterior cervical fusion and Caspar plate stabilization for cervical trauma. Neurosurgery1989;25:491–502.
3.
RichmanJDDanielTEAndersonDDMillerPLDouglasRA. Biomechanical evaluation of cervical spine stabilization methods using a porcine model. Spine1995;20:2192–7.
4.
GrubbMRCurrierBLShihJSBoninVGrabowskiJJChaoEY. Biomechanical evaluation of anterior cervical spine stabilization. Spine1998;23:886–92.
5.
ClausenJDRykenTCTraynelisVCSawinPDDexterFGoelVK. Biomechanical evaluation of Caspar and Cervical Spine Locking Plate Systems in a cadaveric model. J Neurosurg1996;84:1039–45.
6.
BrodkeDSGolloglySMohrAlexander RNguyenBKDaileyATBachusAK. Dynamic cervical pates: Biomechanical evaluation of load sharing and stiffness. Spine2001;26:1324–9.
7.
TruumeesEDemetropoulosCKYangKHHerkowitzHN. Effects of cervical compression plate on graft forces in an anterior cervical discectomy model. Spine2003;28:1097–102.
8.
WangJLPanjabiMMIsomiT. The role of bone graft force in stabilizing the multilevel anterior cervical spine plate system. Spine2000;25:1649–54.
9.
DiAngeloDJFoleyKTVosselKARampersaudYRJansenTH. Anterior cervical plating reverses load transfer through multilevel strut-grafts. Spine2000;25:783–95.
10.
RadekMRadekAZapalowiczKMaciejczakA. Anterior interbody fusion of cervical spine with cage-plate PCB [in Polish]. Neurol Neurochir Pol2001;35:1167–77.
11.
SamandourasGShafafyMHamlynPJ. A new anterior cervical instrumentation system combining an intradiscal cage with an integrated plate: An early technical report. Spine2001;26:1188–92.
12.
Gonzalez-DarderJMMartinezPesudo JVTatayFeliu R. Post-dissectomy cervical fusion. Clinico-radiological study comparing iliac crest bone graft, anterior cervical plate with bone graft and cage-plate GD [in Spanish]. Neurocirugia (Astur)2001;12:143–51.
13.
AydinMVSenOErdoganBSenerLCanerHAltinorsN. Anterior cervical fusion with the PCB cage-plate system. Adv Ther2004;21:21–6.
14.
HakaloJWronskiJ. Cervical spine stabilization by the plate-cage. Clinical evaluation. Neurol Neurochir Pol2007;41:44–54.
15.
WilkeHJWengerKClaesL. Testing criteria for spinal implants: Recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J1998;7:148–54.
16.
Le HuecJCLiuMSkalliWJosseL. Lumbar lateral interbody cage with plate augmentation: In vitro biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J2002;11:130–6.
17.
SchmidtRRichterMClaesLPuhlWWilkeHJ. Limitations of the cervical porcine spine in evaluating spinal implants in comparison with human cervical spinal segments: A biomechanical in vitro comparison of porcine and human cervical spine specimens with different instrumentation techniques. Spine2005;30:1275–82.
18.
McAfeePCCunninghamBDimitrievAHuNKimWoo SCappuccinoA. Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: A comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine2003;28:S176–85.
19.
KotaniYMcNultyPSAbumiKCunninghamBWKanedaKMcAfeePC. The role of anteromedial foraminotomy and the uncovertebral joints in the stability of the cervical spine. A biomechanical study. Spine1998;23:1559–65.
20.
GrisoliFGrazianiNFabriziAPPeragutJCVincentelliFDiaz-VasquezP. Anterior discectomy without fusion for treatment of cervical lateral soft disc extrusion: A follow-up of 120 cases. Neurosurgery1989;24:853–9.
21.
SonntagVKKlaraP. Controversy in spine care. Is fusion necessary after anterior cervical discectomy?Spine1996;21:1111–3.
22.
Maurice-WilliamsRSDorwardNL. Extended anterior cervical discectomy without fusion: A simple and sufficient operation for most cases of cervical degenerative disease. Br J Neurosurg1996;10:261–6.
23.
ThorellWCooperJHellbuschLLeibrockL. The long-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy with and without intervertebral bone graft placement. Neurosurgery1998;43:268–74.
24.
DonaldsonJWNelsonPB. Anterior cervical discectomy without interbody fusion. Surg Neurol2002;57:219–25.
BagbyGW. Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics1988;11:931–4.
27.
SchlenkRPToddStewartBenzelEC. The biomechanics of iatrogenic spinal destabilization and implant failure. Neurosurg Focus2003;15:E2.
28.
LinCYHsiaoCCChenPQHollisterSJ. Interbody fusion cage design using integrated global layout and local microstructure topology optimization. Spine2004;29:1747–54.
29.
TanJSBaileyCSDvorakMFFisherCGOxlandTR. Interbody device shape and size are important to strengthen the vertebra-implant interface. Spine2005;30:638–44.
30.
ShimamotoNCunninghamBWDmitrievAEMinamiAMcAfeePC. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone interbody fusion cages in the cervical spine. Spine2001;26:E432–6.
HartRGillardJPremSSheaMKitchelS. Comparison of stiffness and failure load of two cervical spine fixation techniques in an in vitro human model. J Spinal Disord Tech2005;18(Suppl):S115–8.
34.
CasparWGeislerFHPitzenTJohnsonTA. Anterior cervical plate stabilization in one- and two-level degenerative disease: Overtreatment or benefit?J Spinal Disord1998;11:1–11.
35.
GeislerFHCasparWPitzenTJohnsonTA. Reoperation in patients after anterior cervical plate stabilization in degenerative disease. Spine1998;23:911–20.
36.
ChristodoulouAPloumisATerzidisIHantzidisPTapsisKPournarasJ. Combined interbody cage and anterior plating in the surgical treatment of cervical disc disease. Acta Orthop Belg2004;70:461–5.
37.
SongKJLeeKB. A preliminary study of the use of cage and plating for single-segment fusion in degenerative cervical spine disease. J Clin Neurosci2006;13:181–7.
HakaloJWronskiJCiupikL. Subsidence and its effect on the anterior plate stabilization in the course of cervical spondylodesis. Part I: Definition and review of literature [in Polish]. Neurol Neurochir Pol2003;37:903–15.
40.
HakaloJWronskiJ. Subsidence and its effect on the anterior plate stabilization in the course of cervical interbody spondylodesis. Part II. Clinical evaluation. Study design [in Polish]. Neurol Neurochir Pol2003;37:1063–72.
41.
GercekEArletVDelisleJMarchesiD. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: Warning. Eur Spine J2003;12:513–6.
42.
van JonbergenHPSpruitMAndersonPGPavlovPW. Anterior cervical interbody fusion with a titanium box cage: Early radiological assessment of fusion and subsidence. Spine J2005;5:645–9.
43.
ColpanMEAttarASekerciZTunaHEgemenN. Cervical foraminal area and intervertebral height changes after titanium ring cage placement: Preliminary results. J Clin Neurosci2006;13:228–32.
44.
EyselPFurdererSRompeJDZollnerJ. Initial instability of different cages for fusion of the cervical spine [in German]. Zentralbl Neurochir2000;61:171–6.
