OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of different measurement methods on bone miner density (BMD), including cervical HU of CT, MRI-based cervical vertebral bone quality (C-VBQ), and value of DEXA, for predicting cage subsidence after single-level ACDF.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study, and patients who underwent single-level ACDF from June 2019 to June 2022 were recruited. We collected preoperative total segmental vertebral height (pre-TSVH), cage subsidence height, cervical angle (CA), T1-slope, straight or reverse cervical curvature, mean HU value of C3-7 (C-HU), mean HU of segment (seg-HU), C-VBQ, segmental C-VBQ (seg-VBQ), and total lumbar value ( value). The variables between the two groups were compared by Student's test or chi-square test. Logistic regression was used to determine the independent risk factors for subsidence. The ROC curve was used to analyze the predictive efficiency of C-HU, seg-HU, C-VBQ, seg-VBQ and value for cage subsidence. Finally, the correlations of C-HU, seg-HU, C-VBQ, seg-VBQ, value and subsidence height were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 320 patients were included in this study, and 97 patients (30.31%) had cage subsidence at the last follow-up. The subsidence height was 4.25 ± 0.937 mm in the subsidence group and 1.40 ± 0.726 mm in the nonsubsidence group. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in bone mineral density-related indexes, including C-HU, seg-HU, C-VBQ, seg-VBQ, and value ( < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that C-HU was an independent risk factor for vertebral subsidence after single-level ACDF. ROC curve analysis showed that C-HU had the largest AUC of 0.897 (0.862, 0.933) in predicting vertebral subsidence. Correlation analysis showed that C-HU had a high correlation with the value ( = 0.662,  < 0.001), while C-VBQ had a low correlation with the value ( = -0.173,  = 0.002), and C-VBQ had a low correlation with subsidence height ( = 0.135,  = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that compared with the C-VBQ and value, C-HU is more effective for predicting cage subsidence after ACDF. Using the segmental index of C-VBQ or HU could not improve predictive effectiveness. C-VBQ may be insufficient in predicting cage subsidence and estimating BMD.