This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Siddiqui, A. A. Articles by Jackowski, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Siddiqui, A. A. Articles by Jackowski, A.

Cage versus tricortical graft for cervical interbody fusion

A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMISED STUDY

¹ Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital, Stoney Stanton Road, Coventry CV1 4FH, UK.
² Department of Spinal Surgery, The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Woodlands, Bristol Street, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr A. A. Siddiqui at 338 Birkby Road, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD2 2DB, UK.

We conducted a prospective, randomised study of 42 cervical interbody fusions undertaken with either an autologous tricortical graft or a cage. The factors assessed in the two groups were: (1) time taken to achieve fusion; (2) neck disability index; (3) pain score; (4) interbody height ratio; (5) interbody angle and (6) the influence of smoking on fusion.

No statistical difference was seen in the time taken to achieve fusion, neck disability index, interbody height ratio, or interbody angles. Smoking did not have any effect on the fusion process. The pain score was significantly lower in the tricortical graft group at six months. We conclude that both methods of fusion give similar results, although tricortical graft fusion is cheaper than cage fusion, and is more effective in reducing the pain score.