2023
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07530-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors influencing cage subsidence in anterior cervical corpectomy and discectomy: a systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, during follow-up, we observed a slight decrease in the C2-7 Cobb angle, which is consistent with previous reports [16]. The decrease in Cobb angle may be due to fusion cage sedimentation [1,17]. A previous study found that patients managed with stand-alone cages were more prone to sedimentation than those treated with a plate and cage combination, and a higher subsidence rate was detected in patients who underwent surgery at levels C5-C7 than at levels C2-C5 [17].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Moreover, during follow-up, we observed a slight decrease in the C2-7 Cobb angle, which is consistent with previous reports [16]. The decrease in Cobb angle may be due to fusion cage sedimentation [1,17]. A previous study found that patients managed with stand-alone cages were more prone to sedimentation than those treated with a plate and cage combination, and a higher subsidence rate was detected in patients who underwent surgery at levels C5-C7 than at levels C2-C5 [17].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…15 Therefore, efforts had been taken to investigate the etiology underlying postoperative subsidence in which multiple patient-oriented and procedure-related factors had been reported, including reduced bone mineral density, improper cage size and position, endplate violation, and so on. 16,17 Traditional LF Was Vulnerable to Postoperative Cage Subsidence It had been reported recently that the instruments played a vital role in the development of cage subsidence. Han et al 18 compared the incidence of cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF) with and without instrumentation and concluded the absence of instrumentation to be responsible for higher risk of cage subsidence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as neurological decompression was achieved by adequately distracting interbody space with an oversized cage with excessive footprint, leading to enlarged foraminal area and increased disc height, the OLIF‐LF technique was incapable of direct circumferential neurological decompression as in the posterior approach, resulting in extreme reliance on the maintenance of distracted DH while decreased DH was reported to directly compromise initial decompression postoperatively and associated with radiculopathy recurrence 15 . Therefore, efforts had been taken to investigate the etiology underlying postoperative subsidence in which multiple patient‐oriented and procedure‐related factors had been reported, including reduced bone mineral density, improper cage size and position, endplate violation, and so on 16,17 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CS was defined as the sinking of the cage into the upper or lower endplate by more than 2 mm. 14 Baseline data including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, surgical level, osteoporosis, and timing of PNMCs were also collected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, other aspects of the patients’ imaging data, such as cage subsidence (CS), unilateral/bilateral process decompression, the use of a cross-link, and the position of postoperative sclerotic MCs in the coronal and sagittal planes, were assessed. CS was defined as the sinking of the cage into the upper or lower endplate by more than 2 mm 14 . Baseline data including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, surgical level, osteoporosis, and timing of PNMCs were also collected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%