Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A prospective randomized study comparing a cervical carbon fiber cage to the Smith–Robinson technique with allograft and plating: up to 24 months follow-up

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

Abstract

Introduction: Intervertebral carbon fiber cages may reduce graft collapse and promote bony fusion. Their safety and efficacy in the cervical spine have been investigated; however, no study has compared the outcomes of anterior cervical decompression and placement of a carbon fiber cage with placement of allograft and plate. Methods: Forty consecutive patients who met inclusion criteria were enrolled and randomized to anterior cervical discectomy with carbon fiber cage alone (n=20) or with allograft with plating (n=20). Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Neck and arm pain as well as neck disability index (NDI) were assessed at every visit. The Short Form (SF)-36 was completed prior to operation and at 12-month intervals. Cervical radiographs were evaluated pre-op and at every follow-up for evidence of fusion and instability. Results: No significant difference was found between the two randomized groups with respect to pre-operative age (mean 50 years), sex, employment status, duration of pain or cervical levels affected. The mean follow-up period was 14 months (range, 6–26 months). The clinical pain and disability improvements were similar for both treatments. Post-operative donor site pain was only present in the cage group, but not of significant long-term disability. At up to 24 months, NDI scores were significantly improved in both groups when compared with baseline. At 12 and 24 months, all SF-36 questionnaire responses were also improved in both the treatment groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the two groups at any time. The fusion rate was 100% in both groups by 12 and 24 months, without evidence of instability. There were no differences in complications between both groups. Conclusions: The outcomes after cervical decompression and placement of a carbon fiber cage appear to be similar to cervical decompression with allograft and plating by the Smith–Robinson technique.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agrillo U, Mastronardi L, Puzzilli F (2002) Anterior cervical fusion with carbon fiber cage containing coralline hydroxyapatite: preliminary observations in 45 consecutive cases of soft-disc herniation. J Neurosurg 96:273–276

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Banco SP, Jenis L, Tromanhauser S, Rand F, Banco RJ (2002) The use of cervical cages for treatment of cervical disc disease. Curr Opin Orthop 13:220–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS (1995) Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A statistical evaluation. Spine 20:1055–1060

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartels RH, Donk R, van Azn RD (2001) Height of cervical foramina after anterior discectomy and implantation of a carbon fiber cage. J Neurosurg 95:40–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bishop RC, Moore KA, Hadley MN (1996) Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg 85:206–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bose B (2001) Anterior cervical instrumentation enhances fusion rates in multilevel reconstruction in smokers. J Spinal Disord 14:3–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Geiger JM (1991) A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Mechanical testing. Spine 16:S277–S282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brodke DS, Dick JC, Kunz DN, McCabe R, Zdeblick TA (1997) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage. Spine 22:26–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooke NS, Rorke AW, King AT, Gullan RW (1997) Preliminary experience of carbon fibre cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders. Br J Neurosurg 11:221–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cauthen JC, Kinard RE, Vogler JB, Jackson DE, DePaz OB, Hunter OL et al (1998) Outcome analysis of noninstrumented anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion in 348 patients. Spine 23:188–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fernyhough JC, White JI, LaRocca H (1991) Fusion rates in multilevel cervical spondylosis comparing allograft fibula with autograft fibula in 126 patients. Spine 16:S561–S564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Floyd T, Ohnmeiss D (2000) A meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 9:398–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL (2000) A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage (discussion 2655). Spine 25:2646–2654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Schafer J, Born C, Duda G, Haas NP et al (2001) Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine 26:1850–1857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Claes L (2001) Effects of neck movements on stability and subsidence in cervical interbody fusion: an in vitro study. J Neurosurg 94:97–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT (1999) Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine 24:1604–1610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Payer M, May D, Reverdin A, Tessitore E (2003) Implantation of an empty carbon fiber composite frame cage after single-level anterior cervical discectomy in the treatment of cervical disc herniation: preliminary results. J Neurosurg 98:143–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Salame K, Ouaknine GER, Razon N, Rochkind S (2002) The use of carbon fiber cages in anterior cervical interbody fusion: report of 100 cases. Neurosurg Focus 12:Article 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sawin PD, Traynelis VC, Menezes AH (1998) A comparative analysis of fusion rates and donor-site morbidity for autogeneic rib and iliac crest bone grafts in posterior cervical fusions. J Neurosurg 88:255–265

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shono Y, McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Brantigan JW (1993) A biomechanical analysis of decompression and reconstruction methods in the cervical spine. Emphasis on a carbon-fiber-composite cage. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1674–1684

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Siddiqui AA, Jackowski A (2003) Cage versus tricortical graft for cervical interbody fusion. A prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:1019–1025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:607–624

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Summers BN, Eisenstein SM (1989) Donor site pain from the ilium. A complication of lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:677–680

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tancredi A, Agrillo A, Delfini R, Fiume D, Frati A, Rinaldi A (2004) Use of carbon fiber cages for treatment of cervical myeloradiculopathies (discussion 226). Surg Neurol 61:221–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Togawa D, Bauer TW, Brantigan JW, Lowery GL (2001) Bone graft incorporation in radiographically successful human intervertebral body fusion cages. Spine 26:2744–1750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vavruch L, Hedlund R, Javid D, Leszniewski W, Shalabi A (2002) A prospective randomized comparison between the cloward procedure and a carbon fiber cage in the cervical spine: a clinical and radiologic study. Spine 27:1694–1701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes L (2000) Primary stabilizing effect of interbody fusion devices for the cervical spine: an in vitro comparison between three different cage types and bone cement. Eur Spine J 9:410–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, R-297, 94305, Stanford, CA, USA

    Stephen I. Ryu, Michelle Mitchell & Daniel H. Kim

Authors
  1. Stephen I. Ryu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel H. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen I. Ryu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ryu, S.I., Mitchell, M. & Kim, D.H. A prospective randomized study comparing a cervical carbon fiber cage to the Smith–Robinson technique with allograft and plating: up to 24 months follow-up. Eur Spine J 15, 157–164 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0951-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0951-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation