We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Evaluation of anterior cervical reconstruction with titanium mesh cages versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 cages after 1- or 2-level corpectomy for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study of 117 patients.
PloS One 2014
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the efficacy of the titanium mesh cage (TMC) and the nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 cage (n-HA/PA66 cage) for 1- or 2-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) to treat multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM).
METHODS: A total of 117 consecutive patients with MCSM who underwent 1- or 2-level ACCF using a TMC or an n-HA/PA66 cage were studied retrospectively at a mean follow-up of 45.28 ± 12.83 months. The patients were divided into four groups according to the level of corpectomy (1- or 2-level corpectomy) and cage type used (TMC or n-HA/PA66 cage). Clinical and radiological parameters were used to evaluate outcomes.
RESULTS: At the one-year follow-up, the fusion rate in the n-HA/PA66 group was higher, albeit non-significantly, than that in the TMC group for both 1- and 2-level ACCF, but the fusion rates of the procedures were almost equal at the final follow-up. The incidence of cage subsidence at the final follow-up was significantly higher in the TMC group than in the n-HA/PA66 group for the 1-level ACCF (24% vs. 4%, p = 0.01), and the difference was greater for the 2-level ACCF between the TMC group and the n-HA/PA66 group (38% vs. 5%, p = 0.01). Meanwhile, a much greater loss of fused height was observed in the TMC group compared with the n-HA/PA66 group for both the 1- and 2-level ACCF. All four groups demonstrated increases in C2-C7 Cobb angle and JOA scores and decreases in VAS at the final follow-up compared with preoperative values.
CONCLUSION: The lower incidence of cage subsidence, better maintenance of the height of the fused segment and similar excellent bony fusion indicate that the n-HA/PA66 cage may be a superior alternative to the TMC for cervical reconstruction after cervical corpectomy, in particular for 2-level ACCF.
METHODS: A total of 117 consecutive patients with MCSM who underwent 1- or 2-level ACCF using a TMC or an n-HA/PA66 cage were studied retrospectively at a mean follow-up of 45.28 ± 12.83 months. The patients were divided into four groups according to the level of corpectomy (1- or 2-level corpectomy) and cage type used (TMC or n-HA/PA66 cage). Clinical and radiological parameters were used to evaluate outcomes.
RESULTS: At the one-year follow-up, the fusion rate in the n-HA/PA66 group was higher, albeit non-significantly, than that in the TMC group for both 1- and 2-level ACCF, but the fusion rates of the procedures were almost equal at the final follow-up. The incidence of cage subsidence at the final follow-up was significantly higher in the TMC group than in the n-HA/PA66 group for the 1-level ACCF (24% vs. 4%, p = 0.01), and the difference was greater for the 2-level ACCF between the TMC group and the n-HA/PA66 group (38% vs. 5%, p = 0.01). Meanwhile, a much greater loss of fused height was observed in the TMC group compared with the n-HA/PA66 group for both the 1- and 2-level ACCF. All four groups demonstrated increases in C2-C7 Cobb angle and JOA scores and decreases in VAS at the final follow-up compared with preoperative values.
CONCLUSION: The lower incidence of cage subsidence, better maintenance of the height of the fused segment and similar excellent bony fusion indicate that the n-HA/PA66 cage may be a superior alternative to the TMC for cervical reconstruction after cervical corpectomy, in particular for 2-level ACCF.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app