Biomechanical Comparison of Anterior Cervical Plate Fixation Versus Integrated Fixation Cage for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Timothy P Murphy; Jeremy D Tran; Donald F Colantonio; Anthony H Le; Donald R Fredericks; William B Roach; Joon Chung; Alfred J Pisano; Scott C Wagner; Melvin D Helgeson

doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001630

Biomechanical Comparison of Anterior Cervical Plate Fixation Versus Integrated Fixation Cage for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Clin Spine Surg. 2024 Apr 23. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001630. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Timothy P Murphy^{1

2}, Jeremy D Tran^{1

2}, Donald F Colantonio^{1

2}, Anthony H Le³, Donald R Fredericks^{1

2}, William B Roach^{1

2}, Joon Chung⁴, Alfred J Pisano^{1

2}, Scott C Wagner^{1

2}, Melvin D Helgeson^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopaedics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
² Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
³ DoD-VA Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD.
⁴ Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.

PMID: 38650076
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001630

Abstract

Study design: Cadaveric, biomechanic study.

Objective: To compare the range of motion profiles of the cervical spine following one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) constructs instrumented with either an interbody cage and anterior plate or integrated fixation cage in a cadaveric model.

Summary of background data: While anterior plates with interbody cages are the most common construct of fixation in ACDF, newer integrated cage-plate devices seek to provide similar stability with a decreased implant profile. However, differences in postoperative cervical range of motion between the 2 constructs remain unclear.

Methods: Six cadaveric spines were segmented into 2 functional spine units (FSUs): C2-C5 and C6-T2. Each FSU was nondestructively bent in flexion-extension (FE), right-left lateral bending (LB), and right-left axial rotation (AR) at a rate of 0.5°/s under a constant axial load until a limit of 2-Nm was reached to evaluate baseline range of motion (ROM). Matched pairs were then randomly assigned to undergo instrumentation with either the standard anterior cage and plate (CP) or the integrated fixation cage (IF). Following instrumentation, ROM was then remeasured as previously described.

Results: For CP fixation, ROM increased by 61.2±31.7% for FE, 36.3±20.4% for LB, and 31.7±19.1% for AR. For IF fixation, ROM increased by 64.2±15.5% for FE, 56.7±39.8% for LB, and 94.5±65.1% for AR. There was no significant difference in motion between each group across FE, LB, and AR.

Conclusion: This biomechanical study demonstrated increased motion in both the CP and IF groups relative to the intact, un-instrumented state. However, our model showed no differences in ROM between CP and IF constructs in any direction of motion. These results suggest that either method of instrumentation is a suitable option for ACDF with respect to constructing stiffness at time zero.