Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg
DOI: 10.1055/a-1812-9834
Original Article

Physiologic Osseous Remodeling of the Anterior Wall of the Spinal Canal after Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective Observational Study

Haofei Ni‡   *
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Fifth People's Hospital of Shanghai, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
2   Department of Spinal Surgery, Tongji University School of Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Shanghai, China
,
Wei Mao‡   *
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Fifth People's Hospital of Shanghai, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
,
Hailong Li
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Fifth People's Hospital of Shanghai, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
,
Youhai Dong
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Fifth People's Hospital of Shanghai, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) has been widely used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), cervical trauma, and other cervical diseases, but few studies have reported the osseous and physiologic remodeling of the anterior wall of the spinal canal following ACCF. In this study, we analyze that remodeling process and its influence on titanium mesh cage (TMC) subsidence.

Methods We performed a clinical and radiologic analysis of consecutive patients treated with ACCF. Growth rates (GRs) reflecting the extent of remodeling of the remnants of the resected vertebral bodies were measured. We compared the computed tomography (CT) scans taken immediately and at least 1 year after surgery, and a literature review was conducted.

Results In all, 48 patients underwent ACCF at a mean age of 61.5 ± 12.0 years. The median follow-up was 36 months, and 159 CT images were analyzed. The GR values of the remnants of the vertebral bodies on CT images immediately and 1 year after surgery were 0.505 ± 0.077 and 0.650 ± 0.022 (p < 0.001), respectively, and the GR value at ≥4 years was 1. Axial CT scans showed that remodeling starts from the lateral remnants of the resected vertebral bodies, finally reaching the center. When fusion of the vertebral bodies and the titanium cage was complete during the first year after ACCF, osteogenesis and remodeling were initiated in the osseous anterior wall of the spinal canal. The remodeling of the osseous anterior wall of the spinal canal was completed at the fourth year after surgery, without recompressing the spinal cord, as seen on both axial and lateral CT scans. According to the literature review, there was no TMC subsidence at more than 4 years after surgery.

Conclusion The anterior wall of the spinal canal undergoes osseous remodeling after ACCF. The process is complete in the fourth year after surgery and prevents TMC subsidence.

Keywords

ACCF - cervical spine - bone reconstruction - osseous fusion - cerebrospinal fluid pulsation

* Haofei Ni and Wei Mao contributed equally to this work.




Publication History

Received: 14 November 2020

Accepted: 23 March 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
30 March 2022

Article published online:
13 September 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Sevki K, Mehmet T, Ufuk T, Azmi H, Mercan S, Erkal B. Results of surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy: anterior cervical corpectomy and stabilization. Spine 2004; 29 (22) 2493-2500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Kim J, Lorenz EP, Lim TH, An HS. Enhancement of stability following anterior cervical corpectomy: a biomechanical study. Spine 2004; 29 (08) 845-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Böhler J, Gaudernak T. Anterior plate stabilization for fracture-dislocations of the lower cervical spine. J Trauma 1980; 20 (03) 203-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Riew KD, Rhee JM. The use of titanium mesh cages in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (394) 47-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Shams S, Rashid MJ. Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium mesh cages. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2007; 19 (01) 23-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chuang HC, Cho DY, Chang CS. et al. Efficacy and safety of the use of titanium mesh cages and anterior cervical plates for interbody fusion after anterior cervical corpectomy. Surg Neurol 2006; 65 (05) 464-471 , discussion 471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wen Z, Lu T, Wang Y, Liang H, Gao Z, He X. Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using titanium mesh cages for treatment of degenerative cervical pathologies: a literature review. Med Sci Monit 2018; 24: 6398-6404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hu B, Wang L, Song Y. et al. A comparison of long-term outcomes of nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage and titanium mesh cage in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a clinical follow-up study of least 8 years. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2019; 176: 25-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brown MD, Malinin TI, Davis PB. A roentgenographic evaluation of frozen allografts versus autografts in anterior cervical spine fusions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; (119) 231-236
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shau DN, Bible JE, Samade R. et al. Utility of postoperative radiographs for cervical spine fusion: a comprehensive evaluation of operative technique, surgical indication, and duration since surgery. Spine 2012; 37 (24) 1994-2000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Liu X, Chen Y, Yang H. et al. The application of a new type of titanium mesh cage in hybrid anterior decompression and fusion technique for the treatment of continuously three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2017; 26 (01) 122-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guo Q, Ni B, Zhou F. et al. Anterior hybrid decompression and segmental fixation for adjacent three-level cervical spondylosis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131 (05) 631-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yan D, Wang Z, Deng S, Li J, Soo C. Anterior corpectomy and reconstruction with titanium mesh cage and dynamic cervical plate for cervical spondylotic myelopathy in elderly osteoporosis patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131 (10) 1369-1374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fengbin Y, Jinhao M, Xinyuan L, Xinwei W, Yu C, Deyu C. Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (12) 2891-2896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lau D, Song Y, Guan Z, La Marca F, Park P. Radiological outcomes of static vs expandable titanium cages after corpectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis of subsidence. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (04) 529-539 , discussion 528–529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yang X, Chen Q, Liu L. et al. Comparison of anterior cervical fusion by titanium mesh cage versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide cage following single-level corpectomy. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (12) 2421-2427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Yoshioka K, Murakami H, Demura S. et al. Clinical outcome of spinal reconstruction after total en bloc spondylectomy at 3 or more levels. Spine 2013; 38 (24) E1511-E1516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zhang Y, Quan Z, Zhao Z. et al. Evaluation of anterior cervical reconstruction with titanium mesh cages versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 cages after 1- or 2-level corpectomy for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study of 117 patients. PLoS One 2014; 9 (05) e96265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Li L, He Y, Tang H. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid pulsation stress promotes the angiogenesis of tissue-engineered laminae. Stem Cells Int 2020; 2020: 8026362
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Li L, He Y, Chen X, Dong Y. The role of continuous cerebrospinal fluid pulsation stress in the remodeling of artificial vertebral laminae: a comparison experiment. Tissue Eng Part A 2018; 25 (3–4): 203-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Li L, Chen X, He Y, Dong Y. Biological and mechanical factors promote the osteogenesis of rabbit artificial vertebral laminae: a comparison study. Tissue Eng Part A 2018; 24 (13–14): 1082-1090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dong Y, Chen X, Hong Y. Tissue-engineered bone formation in vivo for artificial laminae of the vertebral arch using β-tricalcium phosphate bioceramics seeded with mesenchymal stem cells. Spine 2013; 38 (21) E1300-E1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dong Y, Chen X, Wang M, Hong Y. Construction of artificial laminae of the vertebral arch using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells transplanted in collagen sponge. Spine 2012; 37 (08) 648-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kolar P, Schmidt-Bleek K, Schell H. et al. The early fracture hematoma and its potential role in fracture healing. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010; 16 (04) 427-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Qin YX, Hu M. Mechanotransduction in musculoskeletal tissue regeneration: effects of fluid flow, loading, and cellular-molecular pathways. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 863421
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gardinier JD, Gangadharan V, Wang L, Duncan RL. Hydraulic pressure during fluid flow regulates purinergic signaling and cytoskeleton organization of osteoblasts. Cell Mol Bioeng 2014; 7 (02) 266-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pivonka P, Dunstan CR. Role of mathematical modeling in bone fracture healing. Bonekey Rep 2012; 1: 221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A. Platelet-rich plasma for bone healing and regeneration. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2016; 16 (02) 213-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Walmsley GG, Ransom RC, Zielins ER. et al. Stem cells in bone regeneration. Stem Cell Rev Rep 2016; 12 (05) 524-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Badran Z, Abdallah MN, Torres J, Tamimi F. Platelet concentrates for bone regeneration: current evidence and future challenges. Platelets 2018; 29 (02) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Majidinia M, Sadeghpour A, Yousefi B. The roles of signaling pathways in bone repair and regeneration. J Cell Physiol 2018; 233 (04) 2937-2948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shah N, Morsi Y, Manasseh R. From mechanical stimulation to biological pathways in the regulation of stem cell fate. Cell Biochem Funct 2014; 32 (04) 309-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Scott A, Khan KM, Duronio V, Hart DA. Mechanotransduction in human bone: in vitro cellular physiology that underpins bone changes with exercise. Sports Med 2008; 38 (02) 139-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Schindeler A, McDonald MM, Bokko P, Little DG. Bone remodeling during fracture repair: the cellular picture. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2008; 19 (05) 459-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Little DG, Ramachandran M, Schindeler A. The anabolic and catabolic responses in bone repair. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (04) 425-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hori T, Kawaguchi Y, Kimura T. How does the ossification area of the posterior longitudinal ligament thicken following cervical laminoplasty?. Spine 2007; 32 (19) E551-E556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H. et al. Progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament following en bloc cervical laminoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83 (12) 1798-1802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 1981; 6 (04) 354-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Takatsu T, Ishida Y, Suzuki K, Inoue H. Radiological study of cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Spinal Disord 1999; 12 (03) 271-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M. et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine 2012; 37 (05) 367-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Lee CH, Sohn MJ, Lee CH, Choi CY, Han SR, Choi BW. Are there differences in the progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament following laminoplasty versus fusion?: a meta-analysis. Spine 2017; 42 (12) 887-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lee DH, Cho JH, Kim NH. et al. Radiological risk factors for progression of ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament following laminoplasty. Spine J 2018; 18 (07) 1116-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Iwasaki K, Furukawa KI, Tanno M. et al. Uni-axial cyclic stretch induces Cbfa1 expression in spinal ligament cells derived from patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Calcif Tissue Int 2004; 74 (05) 448-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar