Comparison of Fusion with Cage Alone and Plate Instrumentation in Two-Level Cervical Degenerative Disease.
- Author:
Yong Hun JOO
1
;
Jong Won LEE
;
Ki Young KWON
;
Jong Joo RHEE
;
Hyun Koo LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Neurosurgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital, Cheongju, Korea. organelle1@naver.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
ACDF with cage alone;
ACDF with plate fixation;
Fusion rate;
Subsidence;
Adjacent level degeneration
- MeSH:
Arm;
Benzeneacetamides;
Diskectomy;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Neck Pain;
Piperidones;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
2010;48(4):342-346
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
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.
