Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data in an academic institution.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new type of titanium mesh cage (TMC) in single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).

Methods

Fifty-eight patients consecutive with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) from cervical degenerative spondylosis and isolated ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament were treated with a single-level ACCF using either a new type of TMC (28 patients, group A) or the traditional TMC (30 patients, group B). We evaluated the patients for TMC subsidence, cervical lordosis (C2–C7 Cobb and Cobb of fused segments) and fusion status for a minimum of 30 months postoperatively based on spine radiographs. In addition, neurologic outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Neck pain was evaluated using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The loss of height of the fused segments was less for group A than for group B (0.8 ± 0.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4 mm) (p < 0.01); also, there was a lower rate of severe subsidence (≥3 mm) in group A (4 %, 1/28) than in group B (17 %, 5/30) (p < 0.01). There were no differences in the C2–C7 Cobb and Cobb of fused segments between the groups preoperatively or at final follow-up (p > 0.05), but the Cobb of fused segments immediately postoperative were significantly less for group B than for group A (p < 0.01). All patients, however, had successful fusion (100 %, each). Both groups had marked improvement in the JOA score after operation (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the JOA recovery ratio (p > 0.05). The postoperative VAS neck pain scores for group A were significantly less than that for group B (p < 0.05); severe subsidence was correlated with neck pain.

Conclusions

The new type of TMC provides comparable clinical results and fusion rates with the traditional TMC for patients undergoing single-level corpectomy. The new design TMC decreases postoperative subsidence (compared to the traditional TMC); the unique design of the new type of TMC matches the vertebral endplate morphology which appears to decrease the severity of subsidence-related neck pain in follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chagas H, Domingues F, Aversa A et al (2005) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: 10 years of prospective outcome analysis of anterior decompression and fusion. Surg Neurol 64(Suppl 1):30–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng NS, Lau PY, Sun LK et al (2005) Fusion rate of anterior cervical plating after corpectomy. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 13:223–227

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu JK, Apfelbaum RI, Schmidt MH (2004) Surgical management of cervical spinal metastasis: anterior reconstruction and stabilization techniques. Neurosurg Clin N Am 15:413–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chun HJ, Oh SH, Yi HJ et al (2009) Efficacy and durability of the titanium mesh cage spacer combined with transarticular screw fixation for atlantoaxial instability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Spine 34:2384–2388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sevki K, Mehmet T, Ufuk T et al (2004) Results of surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior cervical corpectomy and stabilization. Spine 29:2493–2500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein NE (2001) Reoperation rates for acute graft extrusion and pseudarthrosis after one-level anterior corpectomy and fusion with and without plate instrumentation: etiology and corrective management. Surg Neurol 56:73–780

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakase H, Park YS, Kimura H et al (2006) Complications and long-term follow-up results in titanium mesh cage reconstruction after cervical corpectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:353–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Das K, Couldwell WT, Sava G et al (2001) Use of cylindrical titanium mesh and locking plates in anterior cervical fusion. Technical note. J Neurosurg 94:174–178

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen Y, Chen D, Guo Y et al (2008) Subsidence of titanium mesh cage: a study based on 300 cases. J Spinal Disord 21:489–492

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K et al (2003) Pitfalls of anterior cervical fusion using titanium mesh and local autograft. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daubs MD (2005) Early failures following cervical corpectomy reconstruction with titanium mesh cages and anterior plating. Spine 30:1402–1406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yan D, Wang Z, Deng S et al (2011) Anterior corpectomy and reconstruction with titanium mesh cage and dynamic cervical plate forcervical spondylotic myelopathy in elderly osteoporosis patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1369–1374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hee HT, Madj ME, Holt RT et al (2003) Complications of multilevel cervical corpectomies and reconstruction with titanium cages and anterior plating. J Spinal Disord 6:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lim TH, Kwon H, Jeon CH et al (2001) Effect of endplate conditions and bone mineral density on the compressive strength of the graft-endplate interface in anterior cervical spine fusion. Spine 26:951–956

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee SH, Sung JK (2008) Anterior cervical stabilization using a semi-constrained cervical plate and titanium mesh cage for single level corpectomy. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 15:1227–1234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ying Z, Xinwei W, Jing Z et al (2007) Cervical corpectomy with preserved posterior vertebral wall for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a randomized control clinical study. Spine 32:1482–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer SA, Wu JC, Mummaneni PV (2011) Laminoplasty outcomes: is there a difference between patients with degenerative stenosis and those with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament? Neurosurg Focus 30:E9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K et al (1983) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 8:693–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hwang SL, Lee KS, Su YF et al (2007) Anterior corpectomy with iliac bone fusion or discectomy with interbody titanium cage fusion for multilevel cervical degenerated disc disease. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:565–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kepler CK, Rawlins BA (2010) Mesh cage reconstruction with autologous cancellous graft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:328–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eck KR, Bridwell KH, Ungacta FF et al (2000) Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 25:2407–2415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Riew KD, Rhee JM (2002) The use of titanium mesh cages in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 394:47–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chuang HC, Cho DY, Chang CS et al (2006) Efficacy and safety of the use of titanium mesh cages and anterior cervical plates for interbody fusion after anterior cervical corpectomy. Surg Neurol 65:464–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bilbao G, Duart M, Aurrecoechea JJ et al (2010) Surgical results and complications in a series of 71 consecutive cervical spondylotic corpectomies. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152:1155–1163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim HW, Ryu JI, Bak KH (2011) The safety and efficacy of cadaveric allografts and titanium cage as a fusion substitutes in pyogenic osteomyelitis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 50:348–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Acosta FL Jr, Aryan HE, Chou D et al (2008) Long-term biomechanical stability and clinical improvement after extended multilevel corpectomy and circumferential reconstruction of the cervical spine using titanium mesh cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:165–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Vossel KA et al (2000) Anterior cervical plating reverses load transfer through multilevel strut-grafts. Spine 25:783–795

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen Y, Chen D, Yang L et al (2010) Three-dimensional finite elements study of a new titanium mesh cage for bone grafting. J Spinal Surg l8:290–294 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yu Fengbin or Chen Deyu.

Additional information

Y. Fengbin and M. Jinhao contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fengbin, Y., Jinhao, M., Xinyuan, L. et al. Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 22, 2891–2896 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2976-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2976-1

Keywords

Navigation