Charles Explorer logo
🇬🇧

Comparison of 3 Fusion Techniques in the Treatment of the Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease. Is Stand-Alone Autograft Really the "Gold Standard?" Prospective Study With 2-Year Follow-up

Publication at First Faculty of Medicine |
2012

Abstract

Study Design. A prospective study.

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the 3 different methods of interbody fusion of the cervical spine-autograft in stand-alone technique, autograft with anterior plate, and polyetheretherketone cage supported by anterior plate.

The clinical and radiological data obtained were analyzed and discussed. Summary of Background Data.

Although degenerative cervical spine disease has been treated by an anterior approach for more than 50 years, there is not one generally accepted operative approach. There is a very low-quality evidence of little or no difference in pain relief between each of the techniques.

Iliac crest autograft still seems to be the "gold standard" for interbody fusion. Methods.

Prospective study collecting clinical and radiological data of 81 patients undergoing anterior cervical interbody fusion, in which the interbody fusion of 1 or 2 motion segments from C3 to C7 was done by any of the 3 techniques-stand-alone insertion of autograft (group 1: 28 patients), autograft and anterior plate (group 2: 18 patients), and polyetheretherketone cage filled with beta-tricalcium phosphate and plate (group 3: 29 patients). Patients were followed for 2 years after surgery.

Results. Significant interaction of relative height in the segment and time was found (P < 0.001).

The values of the relative height of stand-alone autograft dropped below 95% of initial height and the values of the other 2 groups remained above 105%. Significant interaction of time and group was found for Cobb S angles (P < 0.001).

Values of group 1 decreased substantially and remained significantly lower than values of other 2 groups. Fusion rate was 100% in all groups.

Neck Disability Index group and time interaction was found (P = 0.023). During postoperative follow-up, group 1 scored in all controls higher than the other 2 groups, but differences were not significant.