A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, concurrently controlled, randomized, multicenter trial of an anterior Bagby and Kuslich cervical fusion cage (BAK/C; Sulzer Spine-Tech, Minneapolis, MN) for treatment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. OBJECTIVES: To report clinical results with maximum 24-month follow-up of fusions performed with the BAK/C fusion cage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Threaded lumbar cages have been used during the past decade as a safe and effective surgical solution for chronic disabling low back pain. Threaded cages have now been developed for use in anterior cervical interbody fusions to obviate the need for allografts or autogenous bone grafting procedures while providing initial stability during the fusion process. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic cervical discogenic radiculopathy were treated with either anterior cervical discectomy with uninstrumented bone-only fusion (ACDF) or BAK/C fusion cage(s). Independent radiographic assessment of fusion was made and patient-based outcome was assessed by visual analog pain scale and a Short Form (SF)-36 Health Status Questionnaire. RESULTS: Data analysis included 344 patients at 1 year and 180 at 2 years. When the two cage groups (hydroxya, patite-coated or noncoated) were compared with the ACDF group, similar outcomes were noted for duration of surgery, hospital stay, improvements in neck pain and radicular pain in the affected limb, improvements in the SF-36 Physical Component subscale and Mental Component subscale, and the patients' perception of overall surgical outcome. Symptom improvements were maintained at 2 years. A greater percentage of patients with ACDF needed an iliac crest bone harvest than did BAK/C patients (67% vs.- 3%). Successful fusion for one-level procedures at 12 months was 97.9% for the BAK/C groups and 89.7% for the ACDF group (P < 0.05). The complication rate for the ACDF group was 20.4% compared with an overall complication rate of 11.8% with BAK/C. There was no difference in complications that necessitated a second operative procedure. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that outcomes after a cervical fusion procedure with a threaded cage are the same as those of a conventional uninstrumented bone-only anterior discectomy and fusion with a low risk of complications and rare need for autogenous bone graft harvest.

A randomized prospective study of an anterior cervical interbody fusion device with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up results.

OBJECT: Despite variations in technique, inherent problems persist with current approaches to anterior cervical fusion. This study was performed to determine whether anterior cervical fusion performed using an investigational device was safe and effective in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disorders and whether this device offered advantages over current techniques. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with radiculopathy with or without mild myelopathy due to one- or two-level cervical degenerative disc disease were randomized as part of a Food and Drug Administration device study. Following microsurgical discectomy, the control group was treated with iliac crest graft fusion; the experimental study group underwent insertion of an interspace cage and placement of a local autograft. All patients received postoperative follow-up care for at least 2 years. Good or excellent results were found in approximately 97% of the experimental group and 88% of the control group. A solid fusion was achieved in all patients who underwent one-level cage placement, and a solid fusion at one or both levels was achieved in over 90% of both groups. Chronic donor site pain was reported by 31% of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the use of an interbody fusion cage avoided donor site morbidity and placement of autograft achieved a high rate of good or excellent results. Interbody fusion cages appear safe and effective, and their use helps to avoid some of the inherent problems in performing current anterior cervical fusion techniques.

Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a study comparing two groups of patients surgically treated for disabling low back pain. One group was treated with lumbar anteroposterior fusion (360 degrees fusion), the other with posterior lumbar interbody fusion and an interbody fixation device. OBJECTIVES: To determine which approach provided the best and most cost-effective outcome using similar patient selection criteria. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Others have shown that certain patients with disabling low back pain benefit from lumbar fusion. Although rarely reported, the costs of different surgical treatments appear to vary significantly, whereas the patient outcome may vary little. METHODS: Since 1991, 75 patients have been treated Starting in 1993, posterior lumbar interbody fusion BAK was offered to patients as an alternative to 360 degrees fusion. The treating surgeon reviewed the cases. The interbody fixation device used (BAK; Spine-Tech, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) was part of a Food and Drug Administration study. Patient selection criteria included examination, response to conservative therapy, imaging, psychological profile, and discography. North American Spine Society outcome questionnaires, BAK investigation data radiographs, chart entries, billing records and patient interviews were the basis for assessment. RESULTS: Age, sex compensable injury history and history of previous surgery were similar. Operative time; blood loss, hospitalization time, and total costs were significantly different. There was a quicker return to work and closure of workers compensation claims for the posterior lumbar interbody fusion-BAK group. Patient satisfaction was comparable at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion-BAK achieves equal patient satisfaction but fiscally surpasses the 360 degrees fusion approach. Today's environment of regulated medical practice requires the surgeon to consider cost effectiveness when performing fusion for low back pain.

Screw fixation for odontoid fracture; a comparison of the anterior and posterior technique.

Surgical treatment of atlantoaxial instability resulting from Type II odontoid fracture has evolved in recent years with newer approaches offering the surgeon more options. Our experience with anterior odontoid screw fixation and transarticular C1-2 fusion has exposed us to complications, indications, and contraindications different from those of more traditional posterior arch fixation and fusion procedures. The value and versatility of these two approaches were recently demonstrated in one case: a patient with a Type II odontoid fracture was treated with anterior odontoid screw fixation, suffered a second injury with dislocation and neurologic deficit and responded well to transarticular C1-2 fusion with decompression. A description of our surgical technique and a comparison of the two procedures is presented.

Surgical treatment of brain stem carcinoma: case report.

An unusual case of adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pontomedullary region of the brain stem is presented. When the floor of the 4th ventricle was exposed at operation, this intramedullary tumor was found to be cystic. The patient died of septic complications after an uneventful decompression of the cyst and a subtotal excision of the neoplasm. The rational for surgery (tissue diagnosis and decompression) in some of these cases is discussed.