MRI-based endplate bone quality score independently predicts cage subsidence after anterior cervical corpectomy fusion

To reduce the amount of radiation that patients receive during surgery, surgeons can evaluate the quality of the bone prior to surgery using computed tomography (CT) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Recently, lumbar spine vertebral bone quality has been evaluated using an MRI-based scoring syste...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European spine journal 2024-10
Hauptverfasser: Zheng, Shuxin, Wang, Linnan, Li, Junhu, Li, Qiujiang, Deng, Zhipeng, Wang, Lei, Song, Yueming
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To reduce the amount of radiation that patients receive during surgery, surgeons can evaluate the quality of the bone prior to surgery using computed tomography (CT) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Recently, lumbar spine vertebral bone quality has been evaluated using an MRI-based scoring system. However, few studies have investigated the connection between cage subsidence in patients following cervical interbody fusion and site-specific MRI bone evaluation. It is unknown how cage subsidence following anterior cervical corpectomy decompression and fusion is related to MRI-based endplate bone quality assessment. To create a similar MRI-based cervical spine scoring system (C-EBQ) and to investigate the predictive value of the MRI cervical endplate bone quality (C-EBQ) score for cage subsidence after ACCF. The patients' demographic, surgical, and radiological data were collected. Cage subsidence was defined as fusion segment height loss ≥ 3 mm. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to determine correlations between potential risk factors and subsidence, and simple linear regression analyses of statistically significant indicators were performed. Among the patients who underwent single-level ACCF, 72 met the requirements for inclusion. The C-VBQ scores also improved from 2.28 ± 0.12, indicating no subsidence, to 3.27 ± 0.35, which indicated subsidence, and the C-EBQ scores improved in both the nonsubsidence group (1.95 ± 0.80) and the subsidence group (2.38 ± 0.54). There was a statistically significant difference (p 
ISSN:0940-6719
1432-0932
1432-0932
DOI:10.1007/s00586-024-08511-3