Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 12, 2026

A Novel Vertebral Stabilization Method for Producing Contusive Spinal Cord Injury
Published on: January 5, 2015
Does a zero-profile anchored cage offer additional stabilization as anterior cervical plate?
Young-Seok Lee1, Young-Baeg Kim, Seung-Won Park
1From the Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
For single-level anterior cervical fusion, anchored cages (ACs) showed similar retention to plates (CPs) but were inferior in motion stabilization and fusion rates. Cages with plates are recommended for stronger postoperative stabilization.
Area of Science:
- Spine surgery
- Orthopedics
- Neurosurgery
Background:
- Anterior cervical interbody fusion is a common procedure for cervical degenerative diseases.
- Anchored cages (ACs) have emerged as an alternative to traditional cages with plates (CPs) and stand-alone cages (SCs).
- The comparative efficacy of ACs versus CPs and SCs regarding postoperative retention and motion stabilization remains unclear.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the postoperative retention and motion stabilization of three surgical methods for single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion: stand-alone cages (SCs), cages with plates (CPs), and anchored cages (ACs).
- To evaluate subsidence, fusion rates, and clinical outcomes for each method.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective cohort study comparing SCs (n=60), CPs (n=18), and ACs (n=23) for single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion.
- Evaluated cervical alignment, segmental angle, segmental height, and interspinous process distance in flexion/extension.
- Assessed subsidence, fusion rates, and clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale, Odom criteria) with a mean follow-up of 19.9 months.
Main Results:
- Cages with plates (CPs) and anchored cages (ACs) demonstrated significantly better postoperative retention than stand-alone cages (SCs) at 12 months.
- CPs provided significantly greater motion stabilization than SCs; no significant difference was found between ACs and SCs.
- Subsidence rates were 40.0% for SCs, 21.7% for ACs, and 11.1% for CPs. Fusion rates were 83.3% for SCs, 87.0% for ACs, and 100.0% for CPs.
- Clinical outcomes (pain scores, Odom criteria) were superior in the CP and AC groups compared to the SC group.
Conclusions:
- Anchored cages (ACs) offer comparable retention and clinical outcomes to cages with plates (CPs).
- However, ACs are inferior to CPs in terms of motion stabilization, subsidence prevention, and fusion rates.
- For patients requiring robust postoperative motion stabilization, cages with plates (CPs) are the preferred surgical option over ACs.
More Related Videos
15:11Surgical Fixation of Sternal Fractures: Preoperative Planning and a Safe Surgical Technique Using Locked Titanium Plates and Depth Limited Drilling
Published on: January 5, 2015
04:19Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024