• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.51 no.3
• /
• pp.135-140
• /
• 2012

Objective : To evaluate radiographic results of anterior fusion methods in two-level cervical disc disease : tricortical autograft and plate fixation (ACDF-AP), cage and plate fixation (ACDF-CP), stand-alone cage (ACDF-CA), and corpectomy and plate fixation (ACCF). Methods: The numbers of patients were 70 with a minimum 6 month follow-up (ACDF-AP : 12, ACDF-CP : 27, ACDF-CA : 15, and ACCF : 16). Dynamic simple X-ray and computed tomography were evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively, 6 month, and at the final follow-up. The fusion and subsidence rates at the final were determined, and global cervical lordosis (GCL), cervical range of motion, fused segment angle (FSA), and fused segment height (FSH) were analyzed. Results: Nonunion was observed in 4 (25%) patients with ACDF-CA, 1 (8%) patient with ACDF-AP, 1 (4%) patient with ACDF-CP. The number of loss of FSH (%) more than 3 mm were 2 patients (16%) in ACDF-AP, 3 patients (11%) in ACDF-CP, 5 patients (33%) in ACDF-CA, and 3 patients (20%) in ACCF. The GCL was decreased with ACDF-CA and increased with others. The FSA was increased with ACDF-AP, ACDF-CP, and ACCF, but ACDF-CA was decreased. At the final follow-up, the FSH was slightly decreased in ACDF-CP, ACDF-AP, and ACCF, but ACDF-CA was more decreased. Graft related complication were minimal. Screw loosening, plate fracture, cage subsidence and migration were not identified. Conclusion: ACDF-CP demonstrated a higher fusion rate and less minimal FSH loss than the other fusions in two-level cervical disc disease. The ACDF-AP and ACCF methods had a better outcome than the ACDF-CA with respect to GCL, FSA, and FSH.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.342-346
• /
• 2010

Objective : This study assessed the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with cage alone compared with ACDF with plate instrumentation for radiologic and clinical outcomes in two-level cervical degenerative disease. Methods : Patients with cervical degenerative disc disease from September 2004 to December 2009 were assessed retrospectively. A total of 42 patients received all ACDF at two-level cervical lesion. Twenty-two patients who underwent ACDF with cage alone were compared with 20 patients who underwent ACDF with plate fixation in consideration of radiologic and clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Robinson's criteria and posterior neck pain, arm pain described by a 10 point-visual analog scale. Fusion rate, subsidence, kyphotic angle, instrument failure and the degenerative changes in adjacent segments were examined during each follow-up examination. Results : VAS was checked during each follow-up and Robinson's criteria were compared in both groups. Both groups showed no significant difference. Fusion rates were 90.9% (20/22) in ACDF with the cage alone group, 95% (19/20) in ACDF with the plate fixation group (p = 0.966). Subsidence rates of ACDF with cage alone were 31.81% (7/22) and ACDF with plate fixation were 30% (6/20) (p = 0.928). Local and regional kyphotic angle difference showed no significant difference. At the final follow-up, adjacent level disease developed in 4.54% (1/22) of ACDF with cage alone and 10% (2/20) of ACDF with plate fixation (p= 0.654). Conclusion : In two-level ACDF, ACDF with cage alone would be comparable with ACDF with plate fixation with regard to clinical outcome and radiologic result with no significant difference. We suggest that the routine use of plate and screw in 2-level surgery may not be beneficial.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.60 no.6
• /
• pp.691-700
• /
• 2017

Objective : The authors prospectively analyzed the effect of one-level or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), comparing stand-alone cages and cage-with-plate fixation constructs with respect to clinical outcomes and radiologic changes. Methods : A total of 84 patients who underwent one-level (n=52) or two-level ACDF (n=32) for cervical disc disease and who completed 2 years of follow-up were included in this study. The patients were divided by cervical level and grouped into ACDF-Cage-only and ACDF-Cage-with-plate groups. The following parameters were assessed using radiographs : subsidence, C2-C7 lordosis angle, fusion segment angle, adjacent disc space narrowing, and fusion status. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the neck disability index (NDI) and visual analog scale scores for arm pain. Results : In the comparison of one-level ACDF-cage-only and ACDF-cage-with-plate groups, the NDI score was better in the cage-only group at the 3-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups : however, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed. In the comparison of two-level ACDF-cage-only and ACDF-cage-with-plate groups, no difference in any clinical outcome was observed between the two groups. At the 24-month follow-up, subsidence was observed in 45.8% of patients in the one-level cage-only group and 32.1% of patients in the one-level cage-with-plate fixation group. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence rate between the two groups (p=0.312). Subsidence in the two-level cage-only group (66.6%) was significantly more frequent than in the two-level cage-with-plate fixation group (30%; p=0.049). The fusion rate for patients in the one-level cage-only group was not significantly different from that in the one-level cage-with-plate fixation group (cage-only, 87.5%; cage-with-plate fixation, 92.9%; p=0.425) ; fusion rate in the two-level patients were also similar between groups (cage-only, 83.3%; cage-with-plate fixation, 95%; p=0.31). Conclusion : Our clinical results showed that for single-level cases, plate fixation had no additional benefit versus cage-only; for two-level ACDF cases, the fusion rate and clinical outcomes were similar, although the cage-with-plate fixation group had a lower incidence of cage subsidence than did the cage-only group. We conclude that physicians should be aware of this possible disadvantage associated with using cervical plates in one-level ACDF. However, in two-level ACDF, subsidence is more likely to occur without plate fixation, and thus the addition of plate fixation should be considered.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.60 no.2
• /
• pp.211-219
• /
• 2017

Objective : This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of patients with subaxial cervical injury who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with autologous iliac bone graft or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages using demineralized bone matrix (DBM). Methods : From January 2005 to December 2010, 70 patients who underwent one-level ACDF with plate fixation for post-traumatic subaxial cervical spinal injury in a single institution were retrospectively investigated. Autologous iliac crest grafts were used in 33 patients (Group I), whereas 37 patients underwent ACDF using a PEEK cage filled with DBM (Group II). Plain radiographs were used to assess bone fusion, interbody height (IBH), segmental angle (SA), overall cervical sagittal alignment (CSA, C2-7 angle), and development of adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD). Clinical outcome was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Frankel grade. Results : The mean follow-up duration for patients in Group I and Group II was 28.9 and 25.4 months, respectively. All patients from both groups achieved solid fusion during the follow-up period. The IBH and SA of the fused segment and CSA in Group II were better maintained during the follow-up period. Nine patients in Group I and two patients in Group II developed radiologic ASD. There were no statistically significant differences in the VAS score and Frankel grade between the groups. Conclusion : This study showed that PEEK cage filled with DBM, and plate fixation is at least as safe and effective as ACDF using autograft, with good maintenance of cervical alignment. With advantages such as no donor site morbidity and no graft-related complications, PEEK cage filled with DBM, and plate fixation provide a promising surgical option for treating traumatic subaxial cervical spine injuries.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.89-95
• /
• 2005

Objective: The biomechanical stabilities between the anterior plate fixation after anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDFP) and the posterior transpedicular fixation after ACDF(ACDFTP) have not been compared using human cadaver in bilateral cervical facet dislocation. The purpose of this study is to compare the stability of ACDFP, a posterior wiring procedure after ACDFP(ACDFPW), and ACDFTP for treatment of bilateral cervical facet dislocation. Methods: Ten human spines (C3-T1) were tested in the following sequence: the intact state, after ACDFP(Group 1), ACDFPW(Group 2), and ACDFTP(Group 3). Intervertebral motions were measured by a video-based motion capture system. The range of motion(ROM) and neutral zone(NZ) were compared for each loading mode to a maximum of 2.0Nm. Results: ROMs for Group 1 were below that of the intact spine in all loading modes, with statistical significance in flexion and extension, but NZs were decreased in flexion and extension and slightly increased in bending and axial rotation without significances. Group 2 produced additional stability in axial rotation of ROM and in flexion of NZ than Group 1 with significance. Group 3 provided better stability than Group 1 in bending and axial rotation, and better stability than Group 2 in bending of both ROM and NZ. There was no significant difference in extension modes for the three Groups. Conclusion: ACDFTP(Group 3) demonstrates the most effective stabilization followed by ACDFPW(Group 2), and ACDFP(Group 1). ACDFP provides sufficient strength in most loading modes, ACDFP can provide an effective stabilization for bilateral cervical facet dislocation with a brace.