PMMA versus titanium cage after anterior cervical discectomy - a prospective randomized trial.

J Schröder, F Grosse-Dresselhaus, C Schul, H Wassmann
{"title":"PMMA versus titanium cage after anterior cervical discectomy - a prospective randomized trial.","authors":"J Schröder,&nbsp;F Grosse-Dresselhaus,&nbsp;C Schul,&nbsp;H Wassmann","doi":"10.1055/s-2006-942184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Nonautologous interbody fusion materials are utilised in increasing numbers after anterior cervical disc surgery to overcome the problem of donor site morbidity of autologous bone grafts. This study investigates the performance of two nonautologous materials, the bone cement Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and titanium cages. This prospective randomised trial, with assessment of the results by an independent observer, evaluates whether a Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacer or a titanium cage provides a better fusion rate around the implant and a better clinical outcome.</p><p><strong>Patients/material and methods: </strong>Between 2000 and 2002, 115 patients with monoradicular cervical nerve root compression syndrome caused by soft cervical disc herniation were eligible for this study. Myelopathy, excessive osteophyte formation, and adjacent level degeneration were exclusion criteria. A block-restricted randomisation was applied. The 2-year clinical outcome served as the primary endpoint of the study. Clinical outcome was assessed according to the Odom scale by an independent observer at the follow-up examination. Preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up radiographs were taken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study was completed by 107 patients (53 with PMMA and 54 with titanium cage). No significant difference between the two groups could be established with respect to the clinical outcome. In each group, 26 patients scored excellent. Good results were found in 19 PMMA patients and 16 titanium cage patients; satisfactory results were found in 8 PMMA patients and 9 titanium cage patients; bad results were found in 3 titanium cage patients. In 47 titanium cage cases (87%), fusion occurred radiologically as bony bridging around the implant. The fusion rate was significantly lower (p=0.011) in the PMMA group, with 35 cases (66%) united at follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The radiological result of the titanium cage is superior to that of PMMA with respect to the fusion rate. Although the titanium cage achieves a better fusion rate, there is no difference between titanium cages and PMMA with respect to the clinical outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":50708,"journal":{"name":"Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie","volume":"68 1","pages":"2-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-2006-942184","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-942184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

Abstract

Introduction: Nonautologous interbody fusion materials are utilised in increasing numbers after anterior cervical disc surgery to overcome the problem of donor site morbidity of autologous bone grafts. This study investigates the performance of two nonautologous materials, the bone cement Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and titanium cages. This prospective randomised trial, with assessment of the results by an independent observer, evaluates whether a Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacer or a titanium cage provides a better fusion rate around the implant and a better clinical outcome.

Patients/material and methods: Between 2000 and 2002, 115 patients with monoradicular cervical nerve root compression syndrome caused by soft cervical disc herniation were eligible for this study. Myelopathy, excessive osteophyte formation, and adjacent level degeneration were exclusion criteria. A block-restricted randomisation was applied. The 2-year clinical outcome served as the primary endpoint of the study. Clinical outcome was assessed according to the Odom scale by an independent observer at the follow-up examination. Preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up radiographs were taken.

Results: The study was completed by 107 patients (53 with PMMA and 54 with titanium cage). No significant difference between the two groups could be established with respect to the clinical outcome. In each group, 26 patients scored excellent. Good results were found in 19 PMMA patients and 16 titanium cage patients; satisfactory results were found in 8 PMMA patients and 9 titanium cage patients; bad results were found in 3 titanium cage patients. In 47 titanium cage cases (87%), fusion occurred radiologically as bony bridging around the implant. The fusion rate was significantly lower (p=0.011) in the PMMA group, with 35 cases (66%) united at follow-up.

Conclusion: The radiological result of the titanium cage is superior to that of PMMA with respect to the fusion rate. Although the titanium cage achieves a better fusion rate, there is no difference between titanium cages and PMMA with respect to the clinical outcome.

PMMA与前路颈椎椎间盘切除术后钛笼-一项前瞻性随机试验。
引言:非自体椎体间融合材料越来越多地应用于颈前盘手术后,以克服自体骨移植物供体部位发病率的问题。本研究考察了两种非自体骨水泥材料聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)和钛笼的性能。这项前瞻性随机试验由独立观察员对结果进行评估,评估聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)间隔物或钛保持器是否能提供更好的种植体周围融合率和更好的临床结果。患者/材料和方法:2000年至2002年,115例颈软椎间盘突出症引起的单根颈神经根压迫综合征患者入选本研究。脊髓病、过度骨赘形成和邻近水平退变是排除标准。采用分组限制随机化。2年的临床结果是研究的主要终点。随访时由独立观察员根据奥多姆量表评估临床结果。术前、术后及随访均拍摄x线片。结果:共完成107例患者(PMMA组53例,钛笼组54例)。两组在临床结果方面无明显差异。每组26例患者评分为优。PMMA患者19例,钛笼患者16例,效果良好;PMMA患者8例,钛笼患者9例,效果满意;3例钛笼患者出现不良反应。在47例(87%)钛笼病例中,放射学上的融合表现为种植体周围的骨桥。PMMA组融合率显著低于前者(p=0.011),随访时35例(66%)融合。结论:钛金属笼的放射学结果在融合率方面优于PMMA。虽然钛笼达到了更好的融合率,但钛笼与PMMA在临床结果上没有区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie
Zentralblatt Fur Neurochirurgie 医学-神经科学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信