nach oben

Skeletal Radiology

Erschienen in:

23.10.2017 | Review Article

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: review and update for radiologists

verfasst von: Kimia Khalatbari Kani, Felix S. Chew

Erschienen in: Skeletal Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

The goals of this article are to describe the various types of interbody grafts and anterior cervical plating systems, techniques for optimizing evaluation of cervical spine metallic implants on CT and MR imaging, expected appearance and complications of ACDF on postoperative imaging and imaging assessment of fusion. Optimization for optimizing metal induced artifacts.

Conclusion

Currently, ACDF is the most commonly performed surgical procedure for degenerative cervical spine disease. Interbody fusion is performed with bone grafts or interbody spacers, and may be supplemented with anterior cervical plating. Compressive pathologies at the vertebral body level may be addressed by simultaneous corpectomy. Postoperatively, imaging plays an integral role in routine screening of asymptomatic individuals, fusion assessment and evaluation of complications.

Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L. Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25):E1623–33.CrossRef

Korinth MC. Treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease: current status and trends. Zentralbl Neurochir. 2008;69(3):113–24.CrossRefPubMed

Willson MC, Ross JS. Postoperative spine complications. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2014;24(2):305–26.CrossRefPubMed

Chau AMT, Mobbs RJ. Bone graft substitutes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:449–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Emery SE. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9(6):376–88.CrossRefPubMed

Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD, Brislin BT, Leland JM, Hilibrand AS, et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2004;28:134–9.CrossRef

Ryken TC, Heary RF, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Holly LT, et al. Joint section on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Techniques for cervical interbody grafting. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009:203–20.

Beaman FD, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ, Menke DM, DeOrio JK. Imaging characteristics of bone graft materials. Radiographics. 2006;26(2):373–88.CrossRefPubMed

An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J. Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Spine. 1995;20(20):2211–6.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gore DR. Technique of cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;188:191–5.

11.

Suchomel P, Barsa P, Buchvald P, Svobodnik A, Vanickova E. Autologous versus allogenic bone grafts in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective study with respect to bone union pattern. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(6):510–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Rutherford EE, Tarplett LJ, Davies EM, Harley JM, King LJ. Lumbar spine fusion and stabilization: hardware, techniques, and imaging appearances. Radiographics. 2007;27(6):1737–49.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Hedlund R. Long-term randomized comparison between a carbon fibre cage and the Cloward procedure in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2006;16:173–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Ryu SI, Mitchell M, Kim DH. A prospective randomized study comparing a cervical carbon fiber cage to the smith-Robinson technique with allograft and plating: up to 24 months follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(2):157–64.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cahill DW, Martin GJ, Hajjar MV, Sonstein W, Gaham LB, Engelman RW. Suitabilty of bioresorbable cages for anterior cervical fusion. J Neurosurg (Spine). 2003;98:195–201.CrossRef

16.

Madawi AA, Powell M, Crockard HA. Biocompatible osteoconductive polymer versus iliac graft: a prospective comparative study for the evaluation of fusion pattern after anterior cervical discectomy. Spine. 1996;S21:2123–30.CrossRef

17.

Kandziora F, Bail H, Schmidmaier G, Schollmeier G, Scholz M, Knispel C, et al. Bone morphogenetic protein-2 application by a poly(D,L-lactide)-coated interbody cage: in vivo results of a new carrier for growth factors. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(1 Suppl):40–8.PubMed

18.

Stein MI, Nayak AN, Gaskins RB 3rd, Cabezas AF, Santoni BG, Castellvi AE. Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct. Spine J. 2014;14(1):128–36.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Zhou J, Xia Q, Dong J, Li X, Zhou X, Fang T, et al. Comparison of stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages and iliac crest autografts for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc diseases. Acta Neurochir. 2011;153(1):115–22.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Nouh MR. Spinal fusion-hardware construct: basic concepts and imaging review. World J Radiol. 2012;4(5):193–207.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Haid RW, Foley KT, Rodts GE, Barnes B. The cervical spine study group anterior cervical plate nomenclature. Neurosurg Focus. 2002;12(1):E15.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Wang JC, McDonough PW, Endow K, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB. The effect of cervical plating on single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12:467–71.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Samartzis D, Shen FH, Lyon C, Phillips M, Goldberg EJ, An HS. Does rigid instrumentation increase the fusion rate in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Spine. 2004;4:636–43.CrossRef

24.

Grob D, Peyer JV, Dvorak J. The use of plate fixation in anterior surgery of the degenerative cervical spine: a comparative prospective clinical study. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:408–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Wang JC, McDonough PW, Endow KK, Delamarter RB. Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2000;25:41–5.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Wang JC, McDonough PW, Kanim LE, Endow KK, Delamarter RB. Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2001;26:643–7.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Samartzis D, Shen FH, Matthews DK, Yoon ST, Goldberg EJ, An HS. Comparison of allograft to autograft in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid plate fixation. Spine J. 2003;3:451–9.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Griffith SL, Zogbi SW, Guyer RD, Shelokov AP, Contiliano JH, Geiger JM. Biomechanical comparison of anterior instrumentation for the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord. 1995;8:429–38.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Grubb MR, Currier BL, Shih JS, Bonin V, Grabowski JJ, Chao EY. Biomechanical evaluation of anterior cervical spine stabilization. Spine. 1998;23:886–92.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Rhee JM, Riew KD. Dynamic anterior cervical plates. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(11):640–6.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Campos RR, Botelho RV. Systematic review of the effect of dynamic fixation systems compared with rigid fixation in the anterior cervical spine. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(2):298–304.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Hollern DA, et al. The effect of dynamic versus static plating systems on fusion rates and complications in 1-level and/or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(1):20–6.PubMed

33.

Rhee JM, Park JB, Yang JY, Riew DK. Indications and techniques for anterior cervical plating. Neurol India. 2005;53(4):433–9.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Macdonald RL, Fehlings MG, Tator CH, Lozano A, Fleming JR, Gentili F, et al. Multilevel anterior cervical corpectomy and fibular allograft fusion for cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg. 1997;86:990–7.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Kabir SM, Alabi J, Rezajooi K, Casey AT. Anterior cervical corpectomy: review and comparison of results using titanium mesh cages and carbon fibre reinforced polymer cages. Br J Neurosurg. 2010;24(5):542–6.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Kasliwal MK, O’Toole JE. Clinical experience using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) intervertebral structural cage for anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(2):217–20.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Vaccaro AR, Falatyn SP, Scuderi GJ, Eismont FJ, McGuire RA, Singh K, et al. Early failure of long segment anterior cervical plate fixation. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:410–5.PubMed

38.

lizzard DJ, Hustedt JW, Bohl DD, Telles CJ, Grauer JN. Routine anteroposterior radiographs have limited utility for patients after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22):1904–8.CrossRef

39.

Bohl DD, Hustedt JW, Blizzard DJ, Badrinath R, Grauer JN. Routine imaging for anterior cervical decompression and fusion procedures: a survey study establishing current practice patterns. Orthopedics. 2012;35(7):e1068–72.CrossRefPubMed

40.

acsearch.acr.org [Internet]. Reston, VA:ARC. American College of Radiology: ACR appropriateness criteria®: chronic neck pain (last review date: 2013). [cited 2017 Jul 9]. Available from: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69426/Narrative/

41.

Gupta A, Subhas N, Primak AN, Nittka M, Liu K. Metal artifact reduction: standard and advanced magnetic resonance and computed tomography techniques. Radiol Clin N Am. 2015;53(3):531–47.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Becce F, Ben Salah Y, Verdun FR, et al. Computed tomography of the cervical spine: comparison of image quality between a standard-dose and a low-dose protocol using filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruct. Skelet Radiol. 2013;42(7):937–45.CrossRef

43.

Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative spine. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2000;4(3):281–91.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Jungmann PM, Agten CA, Pfirrmann CW, Sutter R. Advances in MRI around metal. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;Mar 25.

45.

Ren C, Song Y, Xue Y, Yang X. Mid- to long-term outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(5):1115–23.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Alvin MD, Abbott EE, Lubelski D, Kuhns B, Nowacki AS, Steinmetz MP, et al. Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine. 2014;14(9):2231–45.CrossRef

47.

Venu V, Vertinsky AT, Malfair D, Chew JB, Shewchuk J, Heran MK, et al. Plain radiograph assessment of spinal hardware. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2011;15(2):151–62.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Smucker JD, Rhee JM, Singh K, Yoon ST, Heller JG. Increased swelling complications associated with off-label usage of rhBMP-2 in the anterior cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(24):2813–9.CrossRef

49.

rhBMP-2 [Infuse] - North American Spine Society (12/4/2014). https://www.spine.org/Documents/PolicyPractice/CoverageRecommendations/rhBMP.pdf. Accessed 01/20/2017.

50.

Selby MD, Clark SR, Hall DJ, Freeman BJ. Radiologic assessment of spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(11):694–703.PubMed

51.

Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J. 2011;11(6):471–91.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Slone RM, MacMillan M, Montgomery WJ. Spinal fixation: part 3, complications of spinal instrumentation. Radiographics. 1993;13(4):797–816.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Young PM, Berquist TH, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ. Complications of spinal instrumentation. Radiographics. 2007;27(3):775–89.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg. 1999;90(2 Suppl):163–9.PubMed

55.

Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(8):970–81.CrossRef

56.

Lawrence BD, Hilibrand AS, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Brodke DS. Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology in the cervical spine: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S52–64.CrossRef

57.

Raizman NM, O’Brien JR, Poehling-Monaghan KL, Pseudarthrosis YWD. Of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(8):494–503.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Buchowski JM, Liu G, Bunmaprasert T, Rose PS, Riew KD. Anterior cervical fusion assessment: surgical exploration versus radiographic evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(11):1185–91.CrossRef

59.

Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT. 1997 Volvo award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(24):2807–12.CrossRef

60.

Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):802–8.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(7):726–33; discussion 733–4CrossRef

62.

Phillips FM, Carlson G, Emery SE, Bohlman HH. Anterior cervical pseudarthrosis: natural history and treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(14):1585–9.CrossRef

63.

Gruskay JA, Webb ML, Grauer JN. Methods of evaluating lumbar and cervical fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(3):531–9.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Andrews CL. Evaluation of the postoperative spine: spinal instrumentation and fusion. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2000;4(3):259–79.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Hilibrand AS, Dina TS. The use of diagnostic imaging to assess spinal arthrodesis. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29(4):591–601.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Tuli SK, Chen P, Eichler ME, Woodard EJ. Reliability of radiologic assessment of fusion: cervical fibular allograft model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(8):856–60.CrossRef

67.

McAfee PC, Boden SD, Brantigan JW, Fraser RD, Kuslich SD, Oxland TR, et al. Symposium: a critical discrepancy—a criteria of successful arthrodesis following interbody spinal fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(3):320–34.CrossRef

68.

Ploumis A, Mehbod A, Garvey T, Gilbert T, Transfeldt E, Wood K. Prospective assessment of cervical fusion status: plain radiographs versus CT-scan. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;72(3):342–6.PubMed

69.

Ghiselli G, Wharton N, Hipp JA, Wong DA, Jatana S. Prospective analysis of imaging prediction of pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: computed tomography versus flexion-extension motion analysis with intraoperative correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(6):463–8.CrossRef

70.

Cannada LK, Scherping SC, Yoo JU, Jones PK, Emery SE. Pseudoarthrosis of the cervical spine: a comparison of radiographic diagnostic measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(1):46–51.CrossRef

71.

Fassett DR, Apfelbaum RI, Hipp JA. Comparison of fusion assessment techniques: computer-assisted versus manual measurements. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8(6):544–7.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Rothman SL, Glenn WV Jr. CT evaluation of interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985; Mar;(193):47–56.

73.

Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW. Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J. 2007;8(4):570–7.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: review and update for radiologists
verfasst von: Kimia Khalatbari Kani
Felix S. Chew
Publikationsdatum: 23.10.2017
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Skeletal Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2798-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

23.04.2024 | Pankreaskarzinom | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: review and update for radiologists

Abstract

Objectives

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Reliability of standing weight-bearing (0.25T) MR imaging findings and positional changes in the lumbar spine

Combined classical spindle cell/pleomorphic lipoma spectrum imaging and clinical data

Imaging features of glenoid bare spot in a pediatric population

Subfascial fat herniation: sonographic features of back mice

Is lead shielding of patients necessary during fluoroscopic procedures? A study based on kyphoplasty

Conservatively treated knee injury is associated with knee cartilage matrix degeneration measured with MRI-based T2 relaxation times: data from the osteoarthritis initiative

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie