Radiological and Morphological Findings After Experimental, Simultaneous, Cervical Interbody Fusion Using Bone Cement and Autogenous Bone

  • K. Roosen
  • L. Gerhard
  • H.-H. Schattke
  • W. Grote
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Neurosurgery book series (NEURO, volume 9)


Studying the clinical long-term results following anterior cervical fusion with bone cement (polymethylmethacrylate = PMMA), the authors became aware of radiological phenomena, such as “halos” (25), i.e. annular areas of increased radiolucency and changes in the adjacent vertebral bone structures. Because we did not know the cause, an experimental study was designed in order to elucidate the clinical and pathogenetic relevance, and the morphological correlation of these findings (8).


Cervical Spine Intervertebral Disc Bone Cement Interbody Fusion Cervical Disc 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amman, K., Seiferle, E., Pelloni, G.: Atlas zur chirurgisch-topographischen Anatomie des Hundes. Berlin, Hamburg: Parey 1978Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, R.F.: Freeze-thawing as a preparatory technique for electron microscopy. J. Ultrastruct. Res. 7, 173–184 (1962)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chadduck, W.M., Semins, H., Nugent, G.R.: An experimental model for the study of spondylotic myelopathy. Am. J. Surg. 125, 328–330 (1973)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charnley, J., Follacci, F.M., Hammond, B.T.: The long-term reaction of bone to self-curing acrylic cement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 50-B, 822–829 (1968)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charnley, J.: The reaction of bone to self-curing acrylic cement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 52-B, 340–353 (1970)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charnley, J.: Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Berlin: Springer 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chase, S.W., Herndon, C.H.: The fate of autogenous and homogenous bone grafts. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 37-A, 809–841 (1955)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Distelmaier, P., Vlajic, J., Wappenschmidt, J.: Necrosis of vertebrae after Cloward's operation of the cervical spine using “Palacos for fixation. In: Advances in Neurosurgery, Vol. 7. Marguth, F., Brock, M., Kazner, E., Klinger, M., Schmiedek, P. (eds.), pp. 160–171. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 1979Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Felson, B.: Roentgen techniques in laboratory animals. Philadelphia London, Toronto: Saunders 1968Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grote, W., Röttgen, P.: Die ventrale Fusion bei der zervikalen Osteochondrose und ihre Behandlungsergebnisse. Acta Neurochir. 16, 218–240 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grote, W., Bettag, W., Wüllenweber, R.: Indikation, Technik und Ergebnisse zervikaler Fusionen. Acta Neurochir. 22, 1–27 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamby, W.B., Glaser, H.T.: Replacement of spinal intervertebral discs with locally polymerizing methylmethacrylate: Experimental study of effects upon tissues and report of a small clinical series J. Neurosurg. 16, 311–313 (1959)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanslik, L.: Der klinische Wert des Knochentransplantates. Langen- becks Arch. Chir. 329, 996–1005 (1971)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hulliger, L.: Untersuchungen über die Wirkung von Kunstharzen (Palacos und Ostamer) in Gewebekulturen. Arch, orthop. Unfall-Chir. 54, 581–588 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keblish, P.A., Keggi, K.J.: Mechnical problems of the dowel graft in anterior cervical fusion. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 49-A, 198–199 (1967)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kummer, B.: Bauprinzipien des Säugerskeletts. Stuttgart: Thieme 1969Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindwer, J., van den Hooff, A.: The influence of acrylic cement on the femur of the dog. A histological study. Acta Orthop. Scand. 46, 657–671 (1975)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mohr, H.J.: Pathologische Anatomie und kausale Genese der durch selbstpolymerisierendes Methacrylat hervorgerufenen Gewebeveränderungen. Z. ges. exp. Med. 130, 41–69 (1958)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rietz, K.A.: Segmental resection of femurs and fixation of endoprosthesis with methylmethacrylate in dogs. Acta chir. scand., Suppl. 388 (1968)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robinson, R.A., Smith, G.W.: Antero-lateral cervical disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome (Abstr.). Johns Hopk. Hosp. Bull. 96, 223–224 (1955)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roggatz, J., Ulimann, G.: Tierexperimentelle Untersuchungen über die Reaktion des Weichteillagers auf flüssiges und auspolymeri- siertes Palacos. Arch, orthop. Unfall-Chir. 68, 282–293 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schebitz, H., Wilkens, H.: Atlas der Röntgenanatomie von Hund und Katze. Berlin, Hamburg: Parey 1977Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scoville, W.B., Palmer, A.H., Samra, K., Chong, G.: The use of acrylic plastic for vertebral replacement or fixation in metastatic disease of the spine. J. Neurosurg. 21, 274–279 (1967)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, G.W., Robinson, R.A.: The treatment of certain cervical spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 40-A, 607–624 (1958)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szyszkowitz, R.: Einbau und Abbau von Knochenzement bei Kombinationsosteosyntheses im Tierversuch. Arch, orthop. Unfall-Chir. 71, 71–94 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taheri, Z.E., Gueramy, M.: Experience with calf-bone in cervical interbody spinal fusion. J. Neurosurg. 36, 67–71 (1972)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uliberg, S.: The technique of whole body autoradiography cryosectioning of large specimens. Science Tools, Spec. Issue 2–29 (1977)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    White, A.A., Hirsch, C.: An experimental study of the immediate load bearing capacity of some commonly used iliac bone grafts. Acta orthop. Scand. 42, 482–490 (1971)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Willert, H.G., Schreiber, A.: Unterschiedliche Reaktionen von Knochen– und Weichteillager auf autopolymerisierende Kunststoffimplantate. Z. Orthop. 106, 231–252 (1969)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Willert, H.G., Puls, P.: Die Reaktion des Knochens auf Knochenzement bei der Allo-Arthroplastik der Hüfte. Arch, orthop. Unfall-Chir. 12, 33–71 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Willert, H.G.: Die Reaktion des knöchernen Implantatlagers auf Methylmethacrylatknochenzement. In: Der totale Hüftgelenkersatz, Cotta, H., Schulitz, K.P. (Hrsg.), S. 182–192. Stuttgart: Thieme 1973Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Willert, H.G.: Tissue reactions around joint implants and bone cement. In: Arthroplasty of the hip, Chapchal, G. (ed.), pp. 11–21. Stuttgart: Thieme 1973Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Willert, H.G., Ludwig, J., Semlitsch, M.: reaction of bone to methacrylate after hip arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 56-A, 1368–1382 (1974)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Willert, H.G., Semlitsch, M.: Problems associated with the cement anchorage of artificial joints. In: Advances in artificial hip and knee joint technology. Schaldach, M., Hohmann, D. (eds.), pp. 325–346. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 1976Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Roosen
  • L. Gerhard
  • H.-H. Schattke
  • W. Grote

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations