Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2017; 27(03): 263-267
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_211_16
Neuroradiology & Head and Neck Imaging

Complications exclusive to long strut grafts used following multilevel cervical corpectomy: Utilization of advanced imaging techniques

Pushpa B Thippeswamy
Department of Radiology, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Sunitha P Kumaran
Department of Radiology, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Vinay Hegde
Department of Radiology, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Sanjaya Viswamitra
Department of Radiology, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

When surgical decompression of cervical spine is considered, multilevel cervical corpectomy with long strut grafts is the preferred treatment. This procedure is used in a variety of pathologies including degenerative disease, tumors, trauma and infection. Corpectomy with interbody grafting helps in adequate spinal canal and neural decompression compared to multilevel discectomy, which could be difficult as well as inadequate. Fibular/iliac strut grafts are used for reconstruction along with a stabilizing hardware in this procedure. So far, complete imaging spectrum of complications exclusive to strut graft has not been reported in the literature. This pictorial essay presents complications exclusive to the strut graft, utility of advanced imaging in diagnosis and a brief note on the clinical management of complications.

Keywords

Cervical spine - corpectomy - Computed tomography - magnetic resonance imaging - strut grafts


Publication History

Article published online:
27 July 2021

© 2017. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Thongtrangan I, Balabhadra RS, Kim DH. Management of strut graft failure in anterior cervical spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2003;15:E4.
  • 2 Hayashi D, Roemer FW, Mian A, Gharaibeh M, Muller B, Guermazi A. Imaging features of postoperative complications after spinal surgery and instrumentation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:W123-9.
  • 3 Williams AL, Gornet MF, Burkus JK. CT Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Current concepts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2057-66.
  • 4 Nouh MR. Spinal fusion-hardware construct: Basic concepts and imaging review. World J Radiol 2012;4:193-207.
  • 5 Douglas-Akinwande AC, Buckwalter KA, Rydberg J, Rankin JL, Choplin RH. Multichannel CT: Evaluating the spine in postoperative patients with orthopaedic hardware. Radiographics 2006;26:S97-110.
  • 6 Young PM, Berguist TH, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ. Complications of spinal instrumentation. Radiographics 2007;27:775-89.
  • 7 Ray CD. Threaded fusion cages for lumbar interbody fusions: An economic comparison with 360 degrees fusions. Spine 1997;22:681-5.
  • 8 Jones AA, Dougherty PJ, Sharkey NA, Benson DR. Iliac crest bone graft. Osteotome versus saw. Spine 1993;18:2048-52.
  • 9 Myhre AP, Jarosz TJ, Hunter JC, Richardson ML. Postoperative bone graft displacement: An unusual sign of infection following posterior spinal fusion. Radiology Case Reports2006;1:21-3.
  • 10 Falavigna A. Management of wound infection after lumbar arthrodesis maintaining the instrumentation. Coluna/Columna 2015;14:116-20.
  • 11 Bhojraj SY, Nene A, Mohite S, Varma R. Giant cell tumor of the spine: A review of 9 surgical interventions in 6 cases. Indian J Orthop 2007;41:146-50.
  • 12 Murphey MD, Nomikos GC, Flemming DJ, Gannon FH, Temple HT, Kransdorf MJ. Imaging of Giant Cell Tumor and Giant Cell Reparative Granuloma of Bone: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics 2001;21:1283-309.