Anterior Ceervical Interbody Fusion: Comparison Study between Simple Fusion, Locked and Non-locked Plating Systems

The use of metallic plate and screws in the anterior cervical fusion has become generally acceptable and popular. Mainly, there are two different plating systems available. However, there has been few attempts to compare their clinical results with and without a plating system or between two different systems in a single series of clinical study. The authors reviewed 117 patients who underwent anterior cervical fusion during the period of January 1992 to September 1996. Simple fusion without a plating system was applied in 55 cases(group 1), a bicortical non-locked plate screw system in 25(group 2), and a monocortical locked plate screw system in 37(group 3). The average follow-up period was 13. 2 months. In group 1, twenty-two patients(40%) with fracture-dislocation or corpectomy required a rigid brace such as halo brace and Minerva cast for 3 months postope ratively and seven patients(13%) experienced graft complications, mainly graft extrusion. In group 2 and 3, the patients required only soft b races for 4 to 8 weeks and no patients experienced serious graft complications like ones in group 1 but, instead two patients with screw breakages, two back-outs and one non-union were observed. In comparison of the clinical complications such as hoarsness, there were no significant differences between the groups. In conclusion, the plating system in anterior cervical fusion appears to be safe despite the facts that mo re technical demands are required during surgery. It also provides better postoperative stability in the spine and permits earlier ambulation without a rigid brace. A monocortical locked plate screw system appears to have less hardware failures and better su rgical results than a bicortical non-locked plate screw system.

Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion with or Without Plate and Screws System

Although anterior cervical plates are thought to be good tools, their clinical results have not been compared with those of anterior cervical fusion without a plating system in the domestic scientific literature. As there are some advantages as well as shortcomings in these two surgical methods, it is imperative to know which one might be better in terms of the postoperative complications and management. Therefore, the authors reviewed 80patients undergoing anterior cervical fusion during the period of January 1992 to May 1994. Top plate placement was made in 25 and simple fusion without a plating system was applied in 55. The average follow-up period was 9.6 months. In the patients undergoing simple cervical fusion, thirty-two patients(58%) needed rigid braces such as halo braces and Minerva casts for 3 months postoperatively. Thirteen patients(24%) showed graft complications including graft extrusion, whereas patients undergoing plate placement needed only semi-rigid Philadelphia braces for 4 to 8 weeks pos toperatively. Two patients(8%) showed graft setting and screw breakage without any indication of reoperation. However there appeared no difference in the immediate postoperative course of clinical symptoms and the fusion rate(95 vs 96%) at the final follow-up day between the simple fusion and the plate placement patients. The authors conclude that a plating system in anterior cervical fusion may be safe in spite of more extensive operations, and is more likely to offer postoperative stability in the cervical spine and early ambulation and rehabiliation without rigid braces.

Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion with or Without Plate and Screws System

Although anterior cervical plates are thought to be good tools, their clinical results have not been compared with those of anterior cervical fusion without a plating system in the domestic scientific literature. As there are some advantages as well as shortcomings in these two surgical methods, it is imperative to know which one might be better in terms of the postoperative complications and management. Therefore, the authors reviewed 80patients undergoing anterior cervical fusion during the period of January 1992 to May 1994. Top plate placement was made in 25 and simple fusion without a plating system was applied in 55. The average follow-up period was 9.6 months. In the patients undergoing simple cervical fusion, thirty-two patients(58%) needed rigid braces such as halo braces and Minerva casts for 3 months postoperatively. Thirteen patients(24%) showed graft complications including graft extrusion, whereas patients undergoing plate placement needed only semi-rigid Philadelphia braces for 4 to 8 weeks pos toperatively. Two patients(8%) showed graft setting and screw breakage without any indication of reoperation. However there appeared no difference in the immediate postoperative course of clinical symptoms and the fusion rate(95 vs 96%) at the final follow-up day between the simple fusion and the plate placement patients. The authors conclude that a plating system in anterior cervical fusion may be safe in spite of more extensive operations, and is more likely to offer postoperative stability in the cervical spine and early ambulation and rehabiliation without rigid braces.