A comparison between the carbon fiber cage and the cloward procedure in cervical spine surgery: A ten-to thirteen-year follow-up of a prospective randomized study

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 919-925

  Hermansen, Anna ^a   Hedlund, Rune ^b   Vavruch, Ludek ^c   Peolsson, Anneli ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c RYHOV COUNTY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

cage; cervical spine; Cloward; disc; outcome

Indexed keywords

CARBON FIBER;

ANTERIOR CERVICAL DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL INTERVERTEBRAL FUSION CAGE; CLOWARD PROCEDURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISABILITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FOLLOW UP; FORAMINOTOMY; HEADACHE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAMINECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; NERVE ROOT COMPRESSION; ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSEUDARTHROSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REOPERATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINE FUSION; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; SPINE SURGERY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGED; BONE PLATES; CARBON; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79957678830     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e8e4a3     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Gore DR, Sepic SB. Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cer-vical disc disease: a report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 2047-51. (Pubitemid 28485117)
2. Hamburger C, Festenberg FV, Uhl E. Ventral discectomy with PMMA interbody fusion for cervical disc disease: long-term results in 249 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 249-55. (Pubitemid 32144122)
3. Sugawara T, Itoh Y, Hirano Y, et al. Long term outcome and adja-cent disc degeneration after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with titanium cylindrical cages. Acta Neurochir 2009; 151: 303-9.
4. Thorell W, Cooper J, Hellbusch L, et al. The long-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy with and without intervertebral bone graft placement. Neurosurgery 1998; 43: 273-4.
5. Wang X, Chen Y, Chen D, et al. Anterior decompression and inter-body fusion with BAK/C for cervical disc degenerative disorders. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22: 240-5.
6. Hida K, Iwasaki Y, Yano S, et al. Long-term follow-up results in patients with cervical disk disease treated by cervical anterior fusion using titanium cage implants. Neurol Med Chir 2008; 48: 440-6.
7. Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Hedlund R. Long-term randomised com-parison between a Carbon fibre cage and the Cloward procedure in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 173-8. (Pubitemid 46295199)
8. Vavruch L, Hedlund R, Javid D, et al. A prospective randomised comparison between the Cloward procedure and a carbon fibre cage in the cervical spine: a clinical and radiological study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 1694-1701.
9. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, et al. Strain on interver-tebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 670-5. (Pubitemid 29162910)
10. Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervi-cal disks. J Neurosurg 1958; 15: 602-14.
11. Robinson RA, Smith GW. Anterolateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 1955; 96: 223-4.
12. Scott J, Huskisson EC Graphic representation of pain. Pain 1976; 2: 175-84.
13. Werneke M, Hart DL, Cook D. A descriptive study of the central-ization phenomenon: a prosoective analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 676-83. (Pubitemid 29162911)
14. Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14: 409-15.
15. Altmaier EM, Lehmann TR, Russell DW, et al. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for the rehabilitation of low back pain: a randomized controlled trial evaluation. Pain 1992; 49: 329-35.
16. Denison E, Åsenlöf P, Lindberg P. Self-efficacy, fear avoidance, and pain intensity as predictors of disability in subacute and chronic musculosk-eletal pain patients in primary health care. Pain 2004; 111: 245-52. (Pubitemid 39201145)
17. Brooks R. with the EuroQol group. EuroQol: the current state of play Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72.
18. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, et al. Kyphotic malalignement after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J 2001; 10: 320-4. (Pubitemid 32762777)
19. Azmi H, Schlenk RP. Surgery for postarthrodesis adjacent-cervical segment degeneration. Neurosurg Focus 2003; 15: E6.
20. Seo M, Choi D. Adjacent segment disease after fusion for cervical spondylosis: myth or reality? Br J Neurosurg 2008; 22: 195-9. (Pubitemid 351414898)
21. Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L. Prediction of fusion and impor-tance of radiological variables for the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J 2004; 13: 229-34. (Pubitemid 38669956)
22. Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Öberg B. Can the results six months af-ter anterior cervical decompression and fusion identify patients who will have remaining deficit at long-term? Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 117-24. (Pubitemid 43101751)
23. Briggs M, Closs JS. A descriptive study of the use of visual analogue scales for the assessment of postoperative pain in orthopaedic pa-tients. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999; 18: 438-46.
24. Harms-Ringdahl K, Carlsson AM, Ekholm J, et al. Pain assessment with different intensity scales in response to loading of joint struc-tures. Pain 1986; 27: 401-11. (Pubitemid 17226877)
25. Uribe JS, Sangala JR, Duckworth EA, et al. Comparison between anterior cervical discectomy fusion and cervical corpectomy fusion using titanium cages reconstruction: analysis of outcome and long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 654-62.