الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 128 |  |  |
| | | from | 128 | | |
Abstract
Introduction:. -In the early fifties, all surgical procedures of the cervical spine were performed by a posterior approach. -Anterior approaches were avoided for fear of vital structures damage , such as the esophagus, trachea, carotid artery, jugular vein and recurrent laryngeal nerve. -Cervical spinal cord surgeries were performed through large posterior incisions , laminectomies or hemilaminectomies with or without dural opening. -Smith and Robinson in early1950s, developed the anterior cervical disectomy and fusion approach, by prolapsed disc evacuation ,curettage of the end plates and use of tricortical bone graft. -Advances in surgical techniques and use of the microscope with better lighting made anterior approaches safer and feasible which allowed disc removal and interbody fusion without any manipulation of the spinal cord. The aim of the work: This study is to compare between stand alone cervical cage versus cervical cage with plate in single or double level ACDF as regard short term outcomes ( duration of operation , blood loos , duration of neck collar use , duration of dysphagia , length of hospital stay , correction of lordosis , pain improvement by VAS and patient satisfaction by odom’s criteria ). Patients: This is a prospective study will be conducted in Mansoura University hospitals. After approval from the Institutional Research Board, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, patients will be interviewed and written informed consents will be obtained from 30 patients undergoing stand alone cervical cage and cervical cage with plate in single or double level ACDF admitted to neurosurgery department at Mansoura university hospitals. Methods: •History taking. •Examination and assessment. •Investigations: Radiology (MRI and dynamic x-ray cervical spine). •Procedure: cervical discectomy through an anterior approach with curettage of the end plates and placement of cervical PEEK cage (either stand alone cervical cage or cervical cage with plate). Results & Conclusion: Stand alone cervical cage is better in odom’s criteria (fair and excellent categories) with less dysphagia duration , less hospital stay and less blood loss with improvement of the lordotic angel .However, cervical cage with plate is better in odom’s criteria (good category) , VAS post operative and less duration of neck collar use with no improvement of the lordotic angel and no statistically significant difference in operative time. Recommendations: Regarding the limitations in our study, we recommend: Increasing the sample size. Increasing the follow up periods. Key words: ACDF, fusion, cervical cage, plate, subsidence.