Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a well-established spinal operation for cervical disc degeneration disease with neurological compromise. The procedure involves an anterior approach to the cervical spine with discectomy to relieve the pressure on the impinged spinal cord to slow disease progression. The prosthetic cage replaces the disc and can be inserted stand-alone or with an anterior plate that provides additional stability. The literature demonstrates that the cage-alone (CA) is given preference over the cage-plate (CP) technique due to better clinical outcomes, reduced operation time and resultant morbidity. This retrospective case-controlled study compared CA versus CP fixation used in single and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for myelopathy in a tertiary centre in Wales.

A retrospective clinico-radiological analysis was undertaken, following ACDF procedures over seven years in a single tertiary centre. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years of age with cervical myelopathy who had at least six-month follow-up data. SPSS was used to identify any statistically significant difference between both groups. The data were analysed to evaluate the consistency of our findings in comparison to published literature.

Eighty-six patients formed the study cohort; 28 [33%] underwent ACDF with CA and 58 [67%] with CP. The patient demographics were similar in both groups, and fusion was observed in all individuals. There was no statistical difference between the two constructs when assessing subsidence, clinical complication (dysphagia, dysphonia, infection), radiological parameters and reoperations. However, a more significant percentage [43% v 61%] of patients improved their cervical lordosis angle with CP treatment. Furthermore, the study yielded that surgery to upper cervical levels results in a higher incidence of dysphagia [65% v 35%]. Finally, bony growth across the cage was observed on X-ray in 12[43%] patients, a unique finding not mentioned in the literature previously.

Our study demonstrates no overall difference between the two groups, and we recommend careful consideration of individual patient factors when deciding what construct to choose.

Abstract

Structural bulk autografts restore the severe bone loss at primary hip arthroplasty in dysplastic hips and have shown to have good long term outcomes. There are only a few reports of revision arthroplasty for these sockets that fail eventually. We report on a series of such primary hips which underwent cemented revision of the socket for aseptic loosening and their outcomes.

A retrospective review was performed from our database to identify fifteen acetabular revisions after previous bulk autograft. The mean age at revision was 53.9 years (range 31–72.1). The mean duration between the primary and revision arthroplasty was 12.4 years (range 6.6 – 20.3). All procedures were done using trochanteric osteotomy and three hips also needed the femoral component revision. All fifteen hips needed re-bone grafting at the revision surgery to restore the new socket to the level of the true acetabulum. Of these ten hips had morsellised impaction allograft, and the remaining five also needing a structural bulk allograft.

Two sockets underwent re-revision at mean 7.5 years for aseptic loosening. One patient had a dislocation that was reduced closed. At a mean follow up of 5.7 years, one socket showed superior migration, but was stable and did not need further intervention. Two other sockets also showed radiological evidence of loosening, and are being closely monitored.

The medium term results of cemented acetabular revision in this younger age group are satisfactory, with repeat bone grafting being required to restore the true acetabular position. Though the primary arthroplasty with bulk bone graft recreates the acetabular bone stock, significant bone loss due to the mechanical loosening of the socket needs to be anticipated in revision surgery.