gms | German Medical Science

62nd Annual Meeting of the German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC)
Joint Meeting with the Polish Society of Neurosurgeons (PNCH)

German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC)

7 - 11 May 2011, Hamburg

Sagittal profile reconstruction after spinal injuries with a non-distractible vertebral body replacement vs extendable spacers – A retrospective analysis

Meeting Abstract

  • M. Klingenhöfer - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster
  • J. Lövelt - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf
  • S. Eicker - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf
  • H.J. Steiger - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf
  • W. Stummer - Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. Polnische Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgen. 62. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC), Joint Meeting mit der Polnischen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgen (PNCH). Hamburg, 07.-11.05.2011. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2011. DocP 055

doi: 10.3205/11dgnc276, urn:nbn:de:0183-11dgnc2760

Published: April 28, 2011

© 2011 Klingenhöfer et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.



Objective: In reconstructive surgery for traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine injuries, known complications are secondary deformation and implant failure. One of the first interbody spacers was the Moss-CageTM (Depuy). This non-distractible titanium spacer was the forerunner for present extendable spacers. In 1998 the first distractible spacer was introduced: the X-tenzTM (Königsee). It was the aim of this retrospective radiological study to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the different spacers.

Methods: 63 patients with injuries of the thoracic and lumbar spine were treated at our institution between June 1997 and January 2001. The Moss-CageTM was implanted in 34 patients and the X-tenzTM cage in 29 patients. Clinical and surgical data were collected, as well as pre- and post-operative x-rays to assess the sagittal spinal profile and the development of secondary deformation after patient mobilization. X-rays were obtained at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Results: Initial reconstruction of the sagittal spinal profile was achieved with both implants in all patients. Secondary deformation was observed in 9 patients in the Moss-CageTM-group due to implant pistoning in adjacent vertebra. Pistoning was only observed in the X-tenzTM group in one patient (p=0.0157, two-sided Chi-Square test). Furthermore, in the Moss-CageTM-group, one patient suffered implant failure after 6 months with fracture of a pedicle screw. With the exception of this patient bony fusion was observed in all patients after 3 months.

Conclusions: The distractible X-tenzTM proved superior for stable reconstruction of the sagittal spinal profile after spinal column injury.