Skip to main content
Log in

Vertebral body fracture after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored cages in adjacent levels: a cautionary tale

  • Grand Rounds
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background context

Zero-profile (also called self-locking, anchored or stand-alone cages) have been recently proposed as an interesting alternative for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), as they are supposed to reduce the rates of post-operative cage extrusion without necessarily incurring in the additional surgical time and increased rates of dysphagia associated with plating. Nevertheless, the exact indications of zero-profile anchored cages have not yet been established in the literature.

Purpose

To report the first case of a vertebral body fracture between the blades of zero-profile anchored cages after ACDFs in adjacent levels and to review the available literature on hardware-related complications after multi-level ACDFs with zero-profile anchored cages.

Study design

Case report and systematic literature review.

Methods

The authors report the first case of a vertebral body fracture between the blades of zero-profile anchored cages after ACDFs in adjacent levels. The patient presented with refractory mechanical neck pain at the 1-month post-operative follow-up, ultimately requiring a posterior instrumented fusion. A comprehensive systematic literature review on the available data regarding the safety, complications as well as radiological and clinical outcomes of zero-profile anchored cages is also performed.

Results

In the reported case, the use of zero-profile anchored cages in adjacent levels on the cervical spine led to a fracture of the vertebral body between the cages at the 1-month follow-up, with anterior avulsion of the part of the vertebral body where the blades from the two cages converged. According to the systematic literature review which included 409 patients from 10 different clinical series (with a total cumulative follow-up of approximately 535 patients-year), there were only two reported hardware-related complications after ACDF with zero-profile anchored cages, none of them involving fracture at the level of convergence of blades or screws.

Conclusions

Although hardware-related complications after the use of zero-profile anchored cages seem to be rare events, future biomechanical and clinical studies are warranted in order to evaluate the safety of employing such devices for the treatment of multilevel degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miao J, Yu F, Shen Y, He N, Kuang Y, Wang X, Chen D (2014) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with a new prosthesis. Spine J 14(6):878–883. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mummaneni PV, Amin BY, Wu JC, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Sasso RC (2012) Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing long-term follow-up results from two FDA trials. Evid Based Spine Care J 2012(3):59–66

    Google Scholar 

  3. Qureshi SA, Koehler SM, Lu Y, Cho S, Hecht AC (2013) Utilization trends of cervical artificial disc replacement during the FDA investigational device exemption clinical trials compared to anterior cervical fusion. J Clin Neurosci 20:1723–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burkhardt JK, Mannion AF, Marbacher S, Dolp PA, Fekete TF, Jeszenszky D, Porchet F (2013) A comparative effectiveness study of patient-rated and radiographic outcome after 2 types of decompression with fusion for spondylotic myelopathy: anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy. Neurosurg Focus 35:E4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hermansen A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L, Peolsson A (2013) Positive predictive factors and subgroup analysis of clinically relevant improvement after anterior cervical decompression and fusion for cervical disc disease: a 10- to 13-year follow-up of a prospective randomized study: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19:403–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu Y, Qi M, Chen H, Yang L, Wang X, Shi G, Gao R, Wang C, Yuan W (2012) Comparative analysis of complications of different reconstructive techniques following anterior decompression for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 21:2428–2435

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ (2013) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:154–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barlocher CB, Barth A, Krauss JK, Binggeli R, Seiler RW (2002) Comparative evaluation of microdiscectomy only, autograft fusion, polymethylmethacrylate interposition, and threaded titanium cage fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: a prospective randomized study in 125 patients. Neurosurg Focus 12:E4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bertalanffy H, Eggert HR. Clinical long-term results of anterior discectomy without fusion for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. A follow-up of 164 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) l90:127–135

  10. Donaldson JW, Nelson PB (2002) Anterior cervical discectomy without interbody fusion. Surg Neurol 57:219–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hauerberg J, Kosteljanetz M, Bøge-Rasmussen T, Dons K, Gideon P, Springborg JB, Wagner A (2008) Anterior cervical discectomy with or without fusion with ray titanium cage: a prospective randomized clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:458–464

  12. Xie JC, Hurlbert RJ (2007) Discectomy versus discectomy with fusion versus discectomy with fusion and instrumentation: a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 61:107–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs W, Willems PC, Kruyt M, van Limbeek J, Anderson PG, Pavlov P, Bartels R, Oner C (2011) Systematic review of anterior interbody fusion techniques for single- and double-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E950–E960

  14. Oh JK, Kim TY, Lee HS, You NK, Choi GH, Yi S, Ha Y, Kim KN, Yoon do H, Shin HC (2013) Stand-alone cervical cages versus anterior cervical plate in 2-level cervical anterior interbody fusion patients: clinical outcomes and radiologic changes. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:415–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Samartzis D, Shen FH, Goldberg EJ, An HS (2005) Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1756–1761

  16. Fraser JF, Hartl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaiser MG, Haid RW Jr, Subach BR, Barnes B, Rodts GE Jr (2002) Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50:229–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Samartzis D, Shen FH, Lyon C, Phillips M, Goldberg EJ, An HS (2004) Does rigid instrumentation increase the fusion rate in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Spine J 4:636–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Song KJ, Taghavi CE, Lee KB, Song JH, Eun JP (2009) The efficacy of plate construct augmentation versus cage alone in anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2886–2892

  20. Wang JC, McDonough PW, Endow KK, Delamarter RB (2000) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:41–45

  21. Ji GY, Oh CH, Shin DA, Ha Y, Kim KN, Yoon do H, Yudoyono F (2015) Stand-alone cervical cages versus anterior cervical plates in 2-level cervical anterior interbody fusion patients: analysis of adjacent segment degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(7):E433–E438. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a355ad

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li H, Min J, Zhang Q, Yuan Y, Wang D (2013) Dynamic cervical plate versus static cervical plate in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:S41–S46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, Yang L, Yang H, Yuan W, Chen D (2013) Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22:1539–1546

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH (2010) Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:310–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chiang CJ, Kuo YJ, Chiang YF, Rau G, Tsuang YH (2008) Anterior cervical fusion using a polyetheretherketone cage containing a bovine xenograftp: three to five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2524–2428

  26. Cho DY, Lee WY, Sheu PC (2004) Treatment of multilevel cervical fusion with cages. Surg Neurol 62:378–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mastronardi L, Ducati A, Ferrante L (2006) Anterior cervical fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Preliminary observations in 36 consecutive cases with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148:307–312

  28. Zhou J, Xia Q, Dong J, Li X, Zhou X, Fang T, Lin H (2011) Comparison of stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages and iliac crest autografts for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc diseases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153:115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cho SK, Lu Y, Lee DH (2013) Dysphagia following anterior cervical spinal surgery: a systematic review. Bone Joint J 95-B:868–873

  30. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, Grigorian AA, Lee GP, Robinson JS Jr (2007) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2310–2317

  31. Kuo YC, Levine MS (2010) Erosion of anterior cervical plate into pharynx with pharyngotracheal fistula. Dysphagia 25:334–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Azab W, Abdel-Razek M, Ali A, Abdelrahman A, Salaheldin W, Nasim K, Attia H, Soliman D (2012) Outcome evaluation of a zero-profile implant for anterior cervical diskectomy with fusion. Turk Neurosurg 22:611–617

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Barbagallo GM, Romano D, Certo F, Milone P, Albanese V (2013) Zero-P. a new zero-profile cage-plate device for single and multilevel ACDF. A single Institution series with four years maximum follow-up and review of the literature on zero-profile devices. Eur Spine J 22:S868–S878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hofstetter CC, Kesavabhotla K, Boockvar JA (2015) Zero-profile anchored spacer reduces rate of dysphagia compared to ACDF with anterior plating. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E284–E290. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828873ed

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kasliwal MK, O’Toole JE (2012) Integrated intervertebral device for anterior cervical fusion: an initial experience. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 3:52–57

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Li Y, Hao D, He B, Wang X, Yan L (2015) The efficiency of zero-profile implant in anterior cervical discectomy fusion: a prospective controlled long-term follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:398–403. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Miao J, Shen Y, Kuang Y, Yang L, Wang X, Chen Y, Chen D (2013) Early follow-up outcomes of a new zero-profile implant used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E193–E197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Qi M, Chen H, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Liang L, Yuan W (2013) The use of a zero-profile device compared with an anterior plate and cage in the treatment of patients with symptomatic cervical spondylosis: a preliminary clinical investigation. Bone Joint J 95-B:543–547

  39. Scholz M, Schnake KJ, Pingel A, Hoffmann R, Kandziora F (2011) A new zero-profile implant for stand-alone anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:666–673

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vanek P, Bradac O, Delacy P, Lacman J, Benes V (2013) Anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine with Zero-P spacer: prospective comparative study-clinical and radiological results at a minimum 2 years after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E792–E797

  41. Zhou J, Li X, Dong J, Zhou X, Fang T, Lin H, Ma Y (2011) Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages. J Clin Neurosci 18:1505–1509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Majid K, Chinthakunta S, Muzumdar A, Khalil S (2012) A comparative biomechanical study of a novel integrated plate spacer for stabilization of cervical spine: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 27:532–536

  43. Scholz M, Reyes PM, Schleicher P, Sawa AG, Baek S, Kandziora F, Marciano FF, Crawford NR (2009) A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device: biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:156–160

  44. Stein MI, Nayak AN, Gaskins RB 3rd, Cabezas AF, Santoni BG, Castellvi AE (2014) Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct. Spine J 14:128–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wojewnik B, Ghanayem AJ, Tsitsopoulos PP, Voronov LI, Potluri T, Havey RM, Zelenakova J, Patel AA, Carandang G, Patwardhan AG (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of a low profile, anchored cervical interbody spacer device in the setting of progressive flexion-distraction injury of the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 22:135–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yang L, Gu Y, Liang L, Gao R, Shi S, Shi J, Yuan W (2012) Stand-alone anchored spacer versus anterior plate for multilevel anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Orthopedics 35:e1503–e1510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pitzen TR, Chobok J, Stulik J, Ruffing S, Drumm J, Sova L, Kucera R, Vyskocil T, Steudel WI (2009) Implant complications, fusion, loss of lordosis, and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: two-year results of a multi-centric, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:641–646

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias A. Mattei.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests and that no funding was received for this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mattei, T.A., Teles, A.R. & Dinh, D.H. Vertebral body fracture after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored cages in adjacent levels: a cautionary tale. Eur Spine J 29, 943–952 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4358-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4358-3

Keywords

Navigation