Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 5/2020

01-05-2020 | Grand Rounds

Vertebral body fracture after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored cages in adjacent levels: a cautionary tale

Authors: Tobias A. Mattei, Alisson R. Teles, Dzung H. Dinh

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 5/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background context

Zero-profile (also called self-locking, anchored or stand-alone cages) have been recently proposed as an interesting alternative for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), as they are supposed to reduce the rates of post-operative cage extrusion without necessarily incurring in the additional surgical time and increased rates of dysphagia associated with plating. Nevertheless, the exact indications of zero-profile anchored cages have not yet been established in the literature.

Purpose

To report the first case of a vertebral body fracture between the blades of zero-profile anchored cages after ACDFs in adjacent levels and to review the available literature on hardware-related complications after multi-level ACDFs with zero-profile anchored cages.

Study design

Case report and systematic literature review.

Methods

The authors report the first case of a vertebral body fracture between the blades of zero-profile anchored cages after ACDFs in adjacent levels. The patient presented with refractory mechanical neck pain at the 1-month post-operative follow-up, ultimately requiring a posterior instrumented fusion. A comprehensive systematic literature review on the available data regarding the safety, complications as well as radiological and clinical outcomes of zero-profile anchored cages is also performed.

Results

In the reported case, the use of zero-profile anchored cages in adjacent levels on the cervical spine led to a fracture of the vertebral body between the cages at the 1-month follow-up, with anterior avulsion of the part of the vertebral body where the blades from the two cages converged. According to the systematic literature review which included 409 patients from 10 different clinical series (with a total cumulative follow-up of approximately 535 patients-year), there were only two reported hardware-related complications after ACDF with zero-profile anchored cages, none of them involving fracture at the level of convergence of blades or screws.

Conclusions

Although hardware-related complications after the use of zero-profile anchored cages seem to be rare events, future biomechanical and clinical studies are warranted in order to evaluate the safety of employing such devices for the treatment of multilevel degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine.
Literature
1.
2.
Mummaneni PV, Amin BY, Wu JC, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Sasso RC (2012) Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials. Evid Based Spine Care J 2012(3):59–66
3.
Qureshi SA, Koehler SM, Lu Y, Cho S, Hecht AC (2013) Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement during the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trials compared to anterior cervical fusion. J Clin Neurosci 20:1723–1726CrossRefPubMed
4.
Burkhardt JK, Mannion AF, Marbacher S, Dolp PA, Fekete TF, Jeszenszky D, Porchet F (2013) A comparative effectiveness study of patient-rated and radiographic outcome after 2 types of decompression with fusion for spondylotic myelopathy: anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy. Neurosurg Focus 35:E4CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hermansen A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L, Peolsson A (2013) Positive predictive factors and subgroup analysis of clinically relevant improvement after anterior cervical decompression and fusion for cervical disc disease: a 10- to 13-year follow-up of a prospective randomized study: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19:403–411CrossRefPubMed
6.
Liu Y, Qi M, Chen H, Yang L, Wang X, Shi G, Gao R, Wang C, Yuan W (2012) Comparative analysis of complications of different reconstructive techniques following anterior decompression for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 21:2428–2435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ (2013) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:154–160CrossRefPubMed
8.
Barlocher CB, Barth A, Krauss JK, Binggeli R, Seiler RW (2002) Comparative evaluation of microdiscectomy only, autograft fusion, polymethylmethacrylate interposition, and threaded titanium cage fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: a prospective randomized study in 125 patients. Neurosurg Focus 12:E4CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bertalanffy H, Eggert HR. Clinical long-term results of anterior discectomy without fusion for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. A follow-up of 164 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) l90:127–135
10.
Donaldson JW, Nelson PB (2002) Anterior cervical discectomy without interbody fusion. Surg Neurol 57:219–224CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hauerberg J, Kosteljanetz M, Bøge-Rasmussen T, Dons K, Gideon P, Springborg JB, Wagner A (2008) Anterior cervical discectomy with or without fusion with ray titanium cage: a prospective randomized clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:458–464
12.
Xie JC, Hurlbert RJ (2007) Discectomy versus discectomy with fusion versus discectomy with fusion and instrumentation: a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 61:107–116CrossRefPubMed
13.
Jacobs W, Willems PC, Kruyt M, van Limbeek J, Anderson PG, Pavlov P, Bartels R, Oner C (2011) Systematic review of anterior interbody fusion techniques for single- and double-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E950–E960
14.
Oh JK, Kim TY, Lee HS, You NK, Choi GH, Yi S, Ha Y, Kim KN, Yoon do H, Shin HC (2013) Stand-alone cervical cages versus anterior cervical plate in 2-level cervical anterior interbody fusion patients: clinical outcomes and radiologic changes. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:415–420CrossRefPubMed
15.
Samartzis D, Shen FH, Goldberg EJ, An HS (2005) Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1756–1761
16.
Fraser JF, Hartl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298–303CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kaiser MG, Haid RW Jr, Subach BR, Barnes B, Rodts GE Jr (2002) Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50:229–236PubMed
18.
Samartzis D, Shen FH, Lyon C, Phillips M, Goldberg EJ, An HS (2004) Does rigid instrumentation increase the fusion rate in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Spine J 4:636–643CrossRefPubMed
19.
Song KJ, Taghavi CE, Lee KB, Song JH, Eun JP (2009) The efficacy of plate construct augmentation versus cage alone in anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2886–2892
20.
Wang JC, McDonough PW, Endow KK, Delamarter RB (2000) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:41–45
21.
Ji GY, Oh CH, Shin DA, Ha Y, Kim KN, Yoon do H, Yudoyono F (2015) Stand-alone cervical cages versus anterior cervical plates in 2-level cervical anterior interbody fusion patients: analysis of adjacent segment degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(7):E433–E438. doi:10.​1097/​BSD.​0b013e3182a355ad​ CrossRefPubMed
22.
Li H, Min J, Zhang Q, Yuan Y, Wang D (2013) Dynamic cervical plate versus static cervical plate in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:S41–S46CrossRefPubMed
23.
Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, Yang L, Yang H, Yuan W, Chen D (2013) Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22:1539–1546CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH (2010) Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:310–316CrossRefPubMed
25.
Chiang CJ, Kuo YJ, Chiang YF, Rau G, Tsuang YH (2008) Anterior cervical fusion using a polyetheretherketone cage containing a bovine xenograftp: three to five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2524–2428
26.
Cho DY, Lee WY, Sheu PC (2004) Treatment of multilevel cervical fusion with cages. Surg Neurol 62:378–385CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mastronardi L, Ducati A, Ferrante L (2006) Anterior cervical fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Preliminary observations in 36 consecutive cases with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148:307–312
28.
Zhou J, Xia Q, Dong J, Li X, Zhou X, Fang T, Lin H (2011) Comparison of stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages and iliac crest autografts for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc diseases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153:115–122CrossRef
29.
Cho SK, Lu Y, Lee DH (2013) Dysphagia following anterior cervical spinal surgery: a systematic review. Bone Joint J 95-B:868–873
30.
Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, Grigorian AA, Lee GP, Robinson JS Jr (2007) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2310–2317
31.
Kuo YC, Levine MS (2010) Erosion of anterior cervical plate into pharynx with pharyngotracheal fistula. Dysphagia 25:334–337CrossRefPubMed
32.
Azab W, Abdel-Razek M, Ali A, Abdelrahman A, Salaheldin W, Nasim K, Attia H, Soliman D (2012) Outcome evaluation of a zero-profile implant for anterior cervical diskectomy with fusion. Turk Neurosurg 22:611–617PubMed
33.
Barbagallo GM, Romano D, Certo F, Milone P, Albanese V (2013) Zero-P. a new zero-profile cage-plate device for single and multilevel ACDF. A single Institution series with four years maximum follow-up and review of the literature on zero-profile devices. Eur Spine J 22:S868–S878CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Kasliwal MK, O’Toole JE (2012) Integrated intervertebral device for anterior cervical fusion: an initial experience. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 3:52–57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
37.
Miao J, Shen Y, Kuang Y, Yang L, Wang X, Chen Y, Chen D (2013) Early follow-up outcomes of a new zero-profile implant used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E193–E197CrossRefPubMed
38.
Qi M, Chen H, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Liang L, Yuan W (2013) The use of a zero-profile device compared with an anterior plate and cage in the treatment of patients with symptomatic cervical spondylosis: a preliminary clinical investigation. Bone Joint J 95-B:543–547
39.
Scholz M, Schnake KJ, Pingel A, Hoffmann R, Kandziora F (2011) A new zero-profile implant for stand-alone anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:666–673CrossRefPubMed
40.
Vanek P, Bradac O, Delacy P, Lacman J, Benes V (2013) Anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine with Zero-P spacer: prospective comparative study-clinical and radiological results at a minimum 2 years after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E792–E797
41.
Zhou J, Li X, Dong J, Zhou X, Fang T, Lin H, Ma Y (2011) Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages. J Clin Neurosci 18:1505–1509CrossRefPubMed
42.
Majid K, Chinthakunta S, Muzumdar A, Khalil S (2012) A comparative biomechanical study of a novel integrated plate spacer for stabilization of cervical spine: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 27:532–536
43.
Scholz M, Reyes PM, Schleicher P, Sawa AG, Baek S, Kandziora F, Marciano FF, Crawford NR (2009) A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device: biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:156–160
44.
Stein MI, Nayak AN, Gaskins RB 3rd, Cabezas AF, Santoni BG, Castellvi AE (2014) Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct. Spine J 14:128–136CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wojewnik B, Ghanayem AJ, Tsitsopoulos PP, Voronov LI, Potluri T, Havey RM, Zelenakova J, Patel AA, Carandang G, Patwardhan AG (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of a low profile, anchored cervical interbody spacer device in the setting of progressive flexion-distraction injury of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 22:135–141CrossRefPubMed
46.
Yang L, Gu Y, Liang L, Gao R, Shi S, Shi J, Yuan W (2012) Stand-alone anchored spacer versus anterior plate for multilevel anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Orthopedics 35:e1503–e1510CrossRefPubMed
47.
Pitzen TR, Chobok J, Stulik J, Ruffing S, Drumm J, Sova L, Kucera R, Vyskocil T, Steudel WI (2009) Implant complications, fusion, loss of lordosis, and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: two-year results of a multi-centric, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:641–646
Metadata
Title
Vertebral body fracture after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored cages in adjacent levels: a cautionary tale
Authors
Tobias A. Mattei
Alisson R. Teles
Dzung H. Dinh
Publication date
01-05-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4358-3

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

European Spine Journal 5/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Endplate volumetric bone mineral density measured by quantitative computed tomography as a novel predictive measure of severe cage subsidence after standalone lateral lumbar fusion

Original Article

Spinal surgery complications: an unsolved problem—Is the World Health Organization Safety Surgical Checklist an useful tool to reduce them?

Original Article

Acceptable errors with evaluation of 577 cervical pedicle screw placements

Original Article

The normal appearance of CT myelograms

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor concerning “The role of non-rigid cervical collar in pain relief and functional restoration after whiplash injury: a systematic review and a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials” by Ricciardi L, et al. (Eur Spine J; [2019] 28:1821–1828)

Original Article

Is fractal dimension a reliable imaging biomarker for the quantitative classification of an intervertebral disk?