Cargando…

Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio

BACKGROUND: Implant subsidence is an undesirable effect after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We investigated the relation between the rate of implant subsidence and the ratio of the implant surface area to the surface area of the adjacent bone. METHODS: We operated 170 disc spaces i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Godlewski, Bartosz, Bebenek, Adam, Dominiak, Maciej, Karpinski, Grzegorz, Cieslik, Piotr, Pawelczyk, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9351094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35927645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05698-8
_version_ 1784762364648751104
author Godlewski, Bartosz
Bebenek, Adam
Dominiak, Maciej
Karpinski, Grzegorz
Cieslik, Piotr
Pawelczyk, Tomasz
author_facet Godlewski, Bartosz
Bebenek, Adam
Dominiak, Maciej
Karpinski, Grzegorz
Cieslik, Piotr
Pawelczyk, Tomasz
author_sort Godlewski, Bartosz
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implant subsidence is an undesirable effect after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We investigated the relation between the rate of implant subsidence and the ratio of the implant surface area to the surface area of the adjacent bone. METHODS: We operated 170 disc spaces in a group of 104 patients. Two types of implants were used: 1) PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages and 2) titanium-coated (TC) PEEK cages. Patients were randomised to receive a specific implant using a randomisation table. All implants had a surface area of 1.61 cm(2). Based on computed tomography images, bone surface areas were calculated for vertebral bodies immediately adjacent to the interbody implants. The implant-to-bone surface ratio was then calculated for each disc space. Implant subsidence was assessed over 12 months of follow-up, and associations between implant subsidence, the type of implant, and the implant-to-bone surface ratio were investigated. RESULTS: Twelve months after the surgery, computed tomography was performed on 86 patients (144 disc spaces). Furthermore, in 166 disc spaces and 102 patients, conventional radiographs were obtained. Subsidence was observed in 21% of the examined intervertebral spaces, and it was more frequently associated with higher values of bone surface area and lower values of the implant-to-bone surface ratio. The type of implant (PEEK vs TC-PEEK cages) did not significantly influence the rate of implant subsidence. CONCLUSIONS: Implant subsidence was significantly related to the value of a coefficient representing the ratio of the implant's surface area to the bone surface area of the adjacent vertebral bodies, with subsidence occurring significantly more rarely for coefficient values ≥ 0.37.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9351094
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93510942022-08-05 Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio Godlewski, Bartosz Bebenek, Adam Dominiak, Maciej Karpinski, Grzegorz Cieslik, Piotr Pawelczyk, Tomasz BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Implant subsidence is an undesirable effect after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). We investigated the relation between the rate of implant subsidence and the ratio of the implant surface area to the surface area of the adjacent bone. METHODS: We operated 170 disc spaces in a group of 104 patients. Two types of implants were used: 1) PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages and 2) titanium-coated (TC) PEEK cages. Patients were randomised to receive a specific implant using a randomisation table. All implants had a surface area of 1.61 cm(2). Based on computed tomography images, bone surface areas were calculated for vertebral bodies immediately adjacent to the interbody implants. The implant-to-bone surface ratio was then calculated for each disc space. Implant subsidence was assessed over 12 months of follow-up, and associations between implant subsidence, the type of implant, and the implant-to-bone surface ratio were investigated. RESULTS: Twelve months after the surgery, computed tomography was performed on 86 patients (144 disc spaces). Furthermore, in 166 disc spaces and 102 patients, conventional radiographs were obtained. Subsidence was observed in 21% of the examined intervertebral spaces, and it was more frequently associated with higher values of bone surface area and lower values of the implant-to-bone surface ratio. The type of implant (PEEK vs TC-PEEK cages) did not significantly influence the rate of implant subsidence. CONCLUSIONS: Implant subsidence was significantly related to the value of a coefficient representing the ratio of the implant's surface area to the bone surface area of the adjacent vertebral bodies, with subsidence occurring significantly more rarely for coefficient values ≥ 0.37. BioMed Central 2022-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9351094/ /pubmed/35927645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05698-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Godlewski, Bartosz
Bebenek, Adam
Dominiak, Maciej
Karpinski, Grzegorz
Cieslik, Piotr
Pawelczyk, Tomasz
Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio
title Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio
title_full Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio
title_fullStr Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio
title_full_unstemmed Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio
title_short Subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio
title_sort subsidence following cervical discectomy and implant-to-bone ratio
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9351094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35927645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05698-8
work_keys_str_mv AT godlewskibartosz subsidencefollowingcervicaldiscectomyandimplanttoboneratio
AT bebenekadam subsidencefollowingcervicaldiscectomyandimplanttoboneratio
AT dominiakmaciej subsidencefollowingcervicaldiscectomyandimplanttoboneratio
AT karpinskigrzegorz subsidencefollowingcervicaldiscectomyandimplanttoboneratio
AT cieslikpiotr subsidencefollowingcervicaldiscectomyandimplanttoboneratio
AT pawelczyktomasz subsidencefollowingcervicaldiscectomyandimplanttoboneratio