Anterior-only stabilization using cage versus plating with bone autograft for the treatment of type II/IIA Hangman’s fracture combined with intervertebral disc injury

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Shaoyu Liu³  Sheng Huang³  Xuenong Zou³  Zijian Liang³  Ningning Chen³  Manman Gao³  Le Wang³  Rui Zhong³  Shangbin Cui³  Zhiyu Zhou¹  Ximin Pan²  Fuxin Wei³ 

[1] The Medical School of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China;Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China;Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital and Orthopedic Research Institute of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

关键词: Operation;    Cage;    Treatment;    Hangman’s fracture;   

Others  :  1146099
DOI  :  10.1186/s13018-015-0164-1

 received in 2014-09-02, accepted in 2015-01-14,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Anterior C2/3 discectomy and interbody fusion (ACDF) with plating is increasingly performed as the primary treatment of unstable Hangman’s fracture; however, plate-related complications, such as screw back-out, plate fracture and soft-tissue injury, is not uncommon. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage has now been developed to provide initial stability before fusion; however, whether and how ACDF with PEEK cage offer better clinical results compared with ACDF with plating in management of Hangman’s fracture remains unknown. This study compares the efficacy of ACDF with plating to that of ACDF with PEEK cage in management of type II/IIA Hangman’s fractures (according to Levine and Edwards classification) retrospectively.

Methods

From February 2006 to March 2012, a total of 21 patients with type II/IIA Hangman’s fractures combined with intervertebral disc injury underwent ACDF with PEEK cage, and 28 patients underwent ACDF with plating. Perioperative parameters were compared. The average follow-up period was 50.3 months (range 27–76 months). The clinical outcome (visual analog scale (VAS), American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scale, and clinical post-traumatic neck score (PTNC)) and radiological outcome (translation of C2, local kyphotic angle (LKA), and fusion status of C2/3) was compared retrospectively.

Results

The operative time and blood loss were significantly less in the ACDF with cage group compared with that in the ACDF with plating group (P < 0.05). All patients showed neurological recovery and achieved solid fusion. There were no significant differences in the clinical and radiological outcomes at final follow-up between groups, except in the LKA and the correction loss rate of LKA which were higher in the ACDF with plating group (P < 0.05). Donor-site pain occurred in two patients (10.1%) within 6 months after operation in the ACDF with plating group and none in the ACDF with cage group. All patients recovered without any adverse effects.

Conclusions

ACDF with PEEK cage is effective and reliable in management of type II/IIA Hangman’s fractures and is more cost-effective due to shorter operative time and less blood loss requirements.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Wei et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY, Liu JT, Chiu CL, Sheu PC: Preliminary experience using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery. 2002, 51:1343-1350.
• [2]Pryputniewicz DM, Hadley MN: Axis fractures. Neurosurgery. 2010, 66:68-82.
• [3]Grogono BJS: Injuries of the atlas and axis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1954, 36-B:397-410.
• [4]Schneider RC, Livingston KE, Cave AJE, Hamilton G: Hangman’s fracture of the cervical spine. J Neurosurg. 1965, 22:141-154.
• [5]Vaccaro AR, Madigan L, Bauerle WB, Blescia A, Cotler JM. Early halo immobilization of displaced traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:2229–33.
• [6]Verheggen R, Jansen J: Hangman’s fracture: arguments in favor of surgical therapy for type II and III according to Edwards and Levine. Surg Neurol. 1998, 49:253-262.
• [7]Levine AM, Edwards CC: The management of traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1985, 67:217-226.
• [8]Tuite GF, Papadopoulos SM, Sonntag VK: Caspar plate fixation for the treatment of complex Hangman’s fractures. Neurosurgery. 1992, 30:761-764.
• [9]Bristol R, Henn JS, Dickman CA: Pars screw fixation of a Hangman’sfracture: technical case report. Neurosurgery. 2005, 56:E204.
• [10]Tian W, Weng C, Liu B, Li Q, Hu L, Li ZY, et al.: Posterior fixation and fusion of unstable Hangman’s fracture by using intraoperative three-dimensional fluoroscopy-based navigation. Eur Spine J. 2012, 21:863-871.
• [11]Li XF, Dai LY, Lu H, Chen XD: A systematic review of the management of Hangman’s fractures. Eur Spine J. 2006, 15:257-269.
• [12]Ludwig SC, Kowalski JM, Edwards 2nd CC, Heller JG. Cervical pedicle screws: comparative accuracy of two insertion technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2675–81.
• [13]Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Balderston RA, Vaccaro AR, Foley KF, Albert TJ. Placement of pedicle screws in the human cadaveric cervical spine: comparative accuracy of three techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:1655–67.
• [14]Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ: Transpedicle screw fixation of the cervical spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999, 359:77-88.
• [15]Xu H, Zhao J, Yuan J, Wang C: Anterior discectomy and fusion with internal fixation for unstable Hangman’s fracture. Int Orthop. 2010, 34:85-88.
• [16]Zdeblick TA, Hughes SS, Riew KD, Bohlman HH: Failed anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis. Analysis and treatment of thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997, 79:523-532.
• [17]Bishop RC, Moore KA, Hadley MN: Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg. 1996, 85:206-210.
• [18]Bose B: Anterior cervical fusion using Caspar plating: analysis of results and review of the literature. Surg Neurol. 1998, 49:25-31.
• [19]Gaudinez RF, English GM, Gebhard JS, Brugman JL, Donaldson DH, Brown CW: Esophageal perforations after anterior cervical surgery. J Spinal Disord. 2000, 13:77-84.
• [20]Jacobs W, Willems PC, Kruyt M, van Limbeek J, Anderson PG, Pavlov P, et al. Systematic review of anterior interbody fusion techniques for single- and double-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Spine(Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E950–60.
• [21]Topuz K, Colak A, Kaya S, Simşek H, Kutlay M, Demircan MN, et al.: Two-level contiguous cervical disc disease treated with peek cages packed with demineralized bone matrix: results of 3-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009, 18:238-243.
• [22]Cauthen JC, Theis RP, Allen AT: Anterior cervical fusion: a comparison of cage, dowel and dowel-plate constructs. Spine J. 2003, 3:106-117.
• [23]Huang YL, Liu SY, Zhao WD, Liang CX, Li HM, WEI FX: Biomechanical evaluation of Solis cervical cage for typeII Hangman’ s fracture. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord. 2009, 19:285-289.
• [24]McGrory BJ, Klassen RA: Arthrodesis of the cervical spine for fractures and dislocations in children and adolescents. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994, 76:1606-1616.
• [25]Dai LY, Jiang LS, Jiang SD. Anterior-only stabilization using plating with bone structural autograft versus titanium mesh cages for two- or three-column thoracolumbar burst fractures: a prospective randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1429–35.
• [26]El Masry WS, Tsubo M, Katoh S, El Miligui YH, Khan A: Validation of American SpinalInjury Association (ASIA) motor score and the national acute spinal cord injury study (NASCIS) motor score. Spine. 1996, 21:614-619.
• [27]Shin JJ, Kim SH, Cho YE, Cheshier SH, Park J: Primary surgical management by reduction and fixation of unstable Hangman’s fractures with discoligamentous instability or combined fractures. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013, 19:569-575.
• [28]Chen BL, Wei FX, Ueyama K, Xie DH, Sannohe A, Liu SY: Adjacent segment degeneration after single-segment PLIF: the risk factor for degeneration and its impact on clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J. 2011, 20:1946-1950.
• [29]Knop C, Fabian HF, Bastian L, Blauth M. Late results of thoracolumbar fractures after posterior instrumentation and transpedicular bone grafting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:88–99.
• [30]Lin CN, Wu YC, Wang NP, Howng SL: Preliminary experience with anterior interbody titanium cage fusion for treatment of cervical disc disease. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2003, 19:208-216.
• [31]Sys J, Weyler J, Van Der Zijden T, Parizel P, Michielsen J: Platelet-rich plasma in mono-segmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2011, 20:1650-1657.
• [32]Coric D, Wilson JA, Kelly DL Jr: Treatment of traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis with nonrigid immobilization: a review of 64 cases. J Neurosurg. 1996, 85:550-554.
• [33]Liu J, Li Y, Wu Y: One-stage posterior C2 and C3 pedicle screw fixation or combined anterior C2-C3 fusion for the treatment of unstable Hangman’s fracture. Exp Ther Med. 2013, 5:667-672.
• [34]ElMiligui Y, Koptan W, Emran I: Transpedicular screw fixation for type II Hangman’s fracture: a motion preserving procedure. Eur Spine J. 2010, 19:1299-1305.
• [35]Ma W, Xu R, Liu J, Sun S, Zhao L, Hu Y, et al. Posterior short-segment fixation and fusion in unstable Hangman’s fractures. Spine(Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:529–33.
• [36]Wilson AJ, Marshall RW, Ewart M. Transoral fusion with internal fixation in a displaced Hangman’s fracture. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:295–8.
• [37]Ying Z, Wen Y, Xinwei W, Yong T, Hongyu L, Zhu H, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for unstable traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:255–8.
• [38]Rajasekaran S, Vidyadhara S, Shetty AP: Iso-C3D fluoroscopy-based navigation in direct pedicle screw fixation of Hangman fracture: a case report. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007, 20:616-619.
• [39]Samaha C, Lazennec JY, Laporte C, Saillant G: Hangman’s fracture: the relationship between asymmetry and instability. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000, 82:1046-1052.
• [40]Yukawa Y, Kato F, Ito K, Horie Y, Hida T, Nakashima H, et al.: Placement and complications of cervical pedicle screws in 144 cervical trauma patients using pedicle axis view techniques by fluoroscope. Eur Spine J. 2009, 18:1293-1299.
• [41]Suchomel P, Hradil J, Barsa P, Buchvald P, Lukás R, Taller S, et al.: Surgical treatment of fracture of the ring of axis-“Hangman’s fracture”. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2006, 73:321-328.
• [42]Francis WR, Fielding JW, Hawkins RJ, Pepin J, Hensinger R: Traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981, 63-B:313-318.
• [43]Hur H1, Lee JK, Jang JW, Kim TS, Kim SH. Is it feasible to treat unstable hangman's fracture via the primary standard anterior retropharyngeal approach? Eur Spine J. 2014; 23:1641-7.
• [44]Hadley MN, Dickman CA, Browner CM, Sonntag VK: Acute axis fractures: a review of 229 cases. J Neurosurg. 1989, 71:642-647.
• [45]Kulkarni AG, Hee HT, Wong HK: Solis cage (PEEK) for anterior cervical fusion: preliminary radiological results with emphasis on fusion and subsidence. Spine J. 2007, 7:205-209.
• [46]Riew KD, Rhee JM: The use of titanium mesh cages in the cervical spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002, 394:47-54.
• [47]Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2646–54.
• [48]Buttermann GR: Prospective nonrandomized comparison of an allograft with bone morphogenic protein versus an iliac-crest autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2008, 8:426-435.