Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81 Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/e-kjs/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-04.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84 Comparison of Bony Fusion Between the Hollow Cage Group and the Cage with Bone Substitutes Group in One-level Cervical Spinal Disorders.
  • Advanced Search
Korean J Spine Search

CLOSE

Original Article
Korean J Spine 2010;7(2): 73-78.
15
Comparison of Bony Fusion Between the Hollow Cage Group and the Cage with Bone Substitutes Group in One-level Cervical Spinal Disorders.
Yoo Chang Bahn, Seung Hwan Yoon, Jung Min Kim, Hyung Chun Park, Chong Oon Park, Dong Keun Hyun
Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea. nsyoon@gmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes and bone fusion rates after insertion of hollow cages or cages with bone substitutes for treatment of disc protrusion in the cervical spine.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of 93 patients who had undergone cage-assisted anterior cervical spine fusion. Patients were treated with hollow cages (N=52) or with cages with bone substitutes (N=41). Initial and follow up radiologic data were analyzed using Vavruch bone fusion criteria.
RESULTS
Clinical outcomes including preoperative and postoperative pain and functional scores were not significantly different between the two patient groups. The over-all fusion rates differed between the two groups: patients treated with hollow cages demonstrated an average fusion rate of 84.6%, while patients treated with cages with bone substitutes demonstrated an average fusion rate of 87.8%, but these differences were not significant 24 months after surgery. At 18 months after surgery, the fusion rates of patients treated with cages with bone substitutes were significantly different from those of patients treated with hollow cages. Among patients who received bone substitutes, patients who received DBM exhibited better fusion outcomes than patients treated with other bone materials after 18 months of follow-up.
CONCLUSION
Patients who are surgically treated with anterior cervical spine fusion for disc protrusion using cages with bone substitutes may achieve earlier fusion than patients treated with hollow cages, although both groups show similar final fusion rates.
Keywords: Cervical vertebrae;Spinal fusion;Bone fusion;Cage;Bone graft
  • Medtronic
    • TOOLS
    Share :
    Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+
    METRICS Graph View
    • 2,752 View
    • 21 Download
    Related articles in NS

    Comparison of Hollow Cage(RABEATM) and PCB Instrument in a Single Level Anterior Cervical Surgery2005 November;2(4)

    Comparison of Operating Time between Stand-alone Cage and a Standard Method for a Single Level Cervical Disc Disease2012 March;9(1)

    Journal Impact Factor 3.2
    ABOUT
    SUBSPECIALTY

    Browse all articles >

    ARTICLE CATEGORY

    Browse all articles >

    BROWSE ARTICLES
    AUTHOR INFORMATION
    Editorial Office
    CHA University, CHA School of Medicine Bundang Medical Center
    59 Yatap-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 13496, Korea
    Tel: +82-31-780-1924  Fax: +82-31-780-5269  E-mail: support@e-neurospine.org
    The Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society
    #407, Dong-A Villate 2nd Town, 350 Seocho-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06631, Korea
    Tel: +82-2-585-5455  Fax: +82-2-2-523-6812  E-mail: ksns1987@gmail.com
    Business License No.: 209-82-62443

    Copyright © The Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society.

    Developed in M2PI

    Close layer
    prev next