Cargando…

Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a retrospective study to compare the implantation of carbon fiber composite frame cages (CFCFCs) to the implantation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages after anterior cervical discectomy for cervical degenerative disc disease. In addition, the predictive factors th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yoo, Minwook, Kim, Wook-Ha, Hyun, Seung-Jae, Kim, Ki-Jeong, Jahng, Tae-Ahn, Kim, Hyun-Jib
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206963/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25346758
http://dx.doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2014.11.3.127
_version_ 1782340897354022912
author Yoo, Minwook
Kim, Wook-Ha
Hyun, Seung-Jae
Kim, Ki-Jeong
Jahng, Tae-Ahn
Kim, Hyun-Jib
author_facet Yoo, Minwook
Kim, Wook-Ha
Hyun, Seung-Jae
Kim, Ki-Jeong
Jahng, Tae-Ahn
Kim, Hyun-Jib
author_sort Yoo, Minwook
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a retrospective study to compare the implantation of carbon fiber composite frame cages (CFCFCs) to the implantation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages after anterior cervical discectomy for cervical degenerative disc disease. In addition, the predictive factors that influenced fusion or subsidence were investigated. METHODS: A total of 58 patients with single-level degenerative disc disease were treated with anterior cervical discectomy and implantation of stand-alone cages; CFCFCs were used in 35 patients, and PEEK cages were used in 23 patients. Preoperative and postoperative radiological and clinical assessments were performed. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of 41 months, fusion occurred in 43 patients (74.1%), and subsidence developed in 18 patients (31.0%). Pain decreased in all patients, and the patients' satisfaction rate was 75.9%. Neither fusion nor subsidence was related to the clinical outcome. There were no significant differences in the clinical and radiological outcomes between the CFCFC and the PEEK cage groups. Smoking history (p=0.023) was significantly associated with pseudarthrosis, and cage height (≥7mm) (p=0.037) were significantly associated with subsidence. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiological results were similar between the CFCFC and the PEEK cage groups. Fusion or subsidence did not affect the clinical outcomes. Smoking history and cage height (≥7mm) were predictive factors for pseudarthrosis or subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone cages.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4206963
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher The Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42069632014-10-24 Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage Yoo, Minwook Kim, Wook-Ha Hyun, Seung-Jae Kim, Ki-Jeong Jahng, Tae-Ahn Kim, Hyun-Jib Korean J Spine Clinical Article OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a retrospective study to compare the implantation of carbon fiber composite frame cages (CFCFCs) to the implantation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages after anterior cervical discectomy for cervical degenerative disc disease. In addition, the predictive factors that influenced fusion or subsidence were investigated. METHODS: A total of 58 patients with single-level degenerative disc disease were treated with anterior cervical discectomy and implantation of stand-alone cages; CFCFCs were used in 35 patients, and PEEK cages were used in 23 patients. Preoperative and postoperative radiological and clinical assessments were performed. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of 41 months, fusion occurred in 43 patients (74.1%), and subsidence developed in 18 patients (31.0%). Pain decreased in all patients, and the patients' satisfaction rate was 75.9%. Neither fusion nor subsidence was related to the clinical outcome. There were no significant differences in the clinical and radiological outcomes between the CFCFC and the PEEK cage groups. Smoking history (p=0.023) was significantly associated with pseudarthrosis, and cage height (≥7mm) (p=0.037) were significantly associated with subsidence. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiological results were similar between the CFCFC and the PEEK cage groups. Fusion or subsidence did not affect the clinical outcomes. Smoking history and cage height (≥7mm) were predictive factors for pseudarthrosis or subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone cages. The Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society 2014-09 2014-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4206963/ /pubmed/25346758 http://dx.doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2014.11.3.127 Text en Copyright © 2014 The Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Article
Yoo, Minwook
Kim, Wook-Ha
Hyun, Seung-Jae
Kim, Ki-Jeong
Jahng, Tae-Ahn
Kim, Hyun-Jib
Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage
title Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage
title_full Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage
title_fullStr Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage
title_short Comparison between Two Different Cervical Interbody Fusion Cages in One Level Stand-alone ACDF: Carbon Fiber Composite Frame Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage
title_sort comparison between two different cervical interbody fusion cages in one level stand-alone acdf: carbon fiber composite frame cage versus polyetheretherketone cage
topic Clinical Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206963/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25346758
http://dx.doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2014.11.3.127
work_keys_str_mv AT yoominwook comparisonbetweentwodifferentcervicalinterbodyfusioncagesinonelevelstandaloneacdfcarbonfibercompositeframecageversuspolyetheretherketonecage
AT kimwookha comparisonbetweentwodifferentcervicalinterbodyfusioncagesinonelevelstandaloneacdfcarbonfibercompositeframecageversuspolyetheretherketonecage
AT hyunseungjae comparisonbetweentwodifferentcervicalinterbodyfusioncagesinonelevelstandaloneacdfcarbonfibercompositeframecageversuspolyetheretherketonecage
AT kimkijeong comparisonbetweentwodifferentcervicalinterbodyfusioncagesinonelevelstandaloneacdfcarbonfibercompositeframecageversuspolyetheretherketonecage
AT jahngtaeahn comparisonbetweentwodifferentcervicalinterbodyfusioncagesinonelevelstandaloneacdfcarbonfibercompositeframecageversuspolyetheretherketonecage
AT kimhyunjib comparisonbetweentwodifferentcervicalinterbodyfusioncagesinonelevelstandaloneacdfcarbonfibercompositeframecageversuspolyetheretherketonecage