Clinical Study| Volume 19, ISSUE 3, P469-475, March 2019

Download started.


What is the most accurate radiographic criterion to determine anterior cervical fusion?


      • We compared the accuracy of four radiographic anterior cervical fusion criteria.
      • ExGBB criterion demonstrated the highest reliability and accuracy.
      • ISM criterion has comparable accuracy to the CT scan as initial diagnostic test.
      • Bridging bone and InGBB criteria were less accurate in case used cage We recommend ISM and ExGBB criteria to increase accuracy in case used cage.



      The accuracy of radiographic criteria for determining anterior cervical fusion remains controversial, and inconsistency in the literature makes a comparison of published clinical results problematic. The descriptions of bridging bone are still lacking and subjective, and the interpretation of images can be influenced by the type of graft or cage used.


      To assess and validate the diagnostic accuracies of four radiographic fusion criteria using the results of surgical exploration.


      Retrospective, radiographic, and comparative study.


      This study included patients who required anterior or posterior exploration of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis level(s) ranging from C3–C4 to C7–T1 for suspected pseudarthrosis or adjacent-segment pathologies. They underwent radiologic examinations to determine the four fusion criteria. We included patients whose images were taken at least 1 year after the index surgery, and 82 patients with 151 cervical segments were enrolled.


      The inter- and intra-rater reliabilities and validity that correlated with the results of surgical exploration for the four fusion criteria were assessed using data (fusion or not) that were collected by two raters.


      The four published radiographic fusion criteria were interspinous motion (ISM) < 1 mm and superjacent ISM ≥ 4 mm, seen on dynamic radiographs; conventional bridging bone, as seen on computed tomography (CT) scans; and extra-graft bridging bone (ExGBB) and intragraft bridging bone (InGBB), observed on multi-axial reconstructed CT scans. The criteria were evaluated by two raters (spine surgeons with 5 and 7 years of experience). The raters evaluated each criterion twice at two different time points, 3 to 4 weeks apart. First, ISM and conventional bridging bone on CT scans were evaluated, followed by ExGBB and InGBB, with a time interval of 4 months. This Research was supported by the Chung-Ang University Research Grants (less than 5,000 US dollars) in 2016.


      The inter- and intra-rater reliability values of the ExGBB (0.887–0.933) criteria were the highest, followed by those for the ISM (0.860–0.906), bridging bone (0.755–0.907), and InGBB (0.656–0.695) criteria. The validity values that correlated with the exploration results were the highest for the ExGBB criteria (k=0.889), followed by the ISM (k=0.776), bridging bone (k=0.757), and InGBB (k=0.656) criteria and ExGBB showed the highest sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (98.4%). Regarding the graft materials that were used, all criteria had the highest values in the auto-cortical group and lowest values in the cage group. Of note, sensitivity and specificity of ExGBB were 100% in autocortical group. In the cage group, the validity values for the ExGBB (k=0.663) and ISM (k=0.666) criteria were higher than those for the bridging bone (k=0.504) and InGBB (k=0.308) criteria


      The presence of ExGBB (anterior, posterior, or lateral to the graft or cage) correlated the best with surgical exploration. The ISM criteria demonstrated a similar accuracy to that of conventional bridging bone criteria on CT scans. In arthrodesed segments with auto-cortical bone, criteria showed the highest validity values. In cage group, ISM and ExGBB had acceptable accuracy, but the conventional bridging bone and InGBB were worse than guessing. We recommend that ISM and ExGBB criteria should be used to increase accuracy in patients who undergo arthrodesis with cages.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Rhee JM
        • Chapman JR
        • Norvell DC
        • Smith J
        • Sherry NA
        • Riew KD
        Radiological determination of postoperative cervical fusion: a systematic review.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40: 974-991
        • Song KS
        • Piyaskulkaew C
        • Chuntarapas T
        • Buchowski JM
        • Kim HJ
        • Park MS
        • et al.
        Dynamic radiographic criteria for detecting pseudarthrosis following anterior cervical arthrodesis.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: 557-563
        • Gruskay JA
        • Webb ML
        • Grauer JN
        Methods of evaluating lumbar and cervical fusion.
        Spine J. 2014; 14: 531-539
        • Song KS
        • Chaiwat P
        • Kim HJ
        • Mesfin A
        • Park SM
        • Riew KD
        Anterior cervical fusion assessment using reconstructed computed tomographic scans: surgical confirmation of 254 segments.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38: 2171-2177
        • Goldstein C
        • Drew B
        When is a spine fused?.
        Injury. 2011; 42: 306-313
        • Ghiselli G
        • Wharton N
        • Hipp JA
        • Wong DA
        • Jatana S
        Prospective analysis of imaging prediction of pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: computed tomography versus flexion-extension motion analysis with intraoperative correlation.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36: 463-468
        • Kaiser MG
        • Mummaneni PV
        • Matz PG
        • Anderson PA
        • Groff MW
        • Heary RF
        • et al.
        Radiographic assessment of cervical subaxial fusion.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 11: 221-227
        • Selby MD
        • Clark SR
        • Hall DJ
        • Freeman BJ
        Radiologic assessment of spinal fusion.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012; 20: 694-703
        • Raizman NM
        • O'Brien JR
        • Poehling-Monaghan KL
        • Yu WD
        Pseudarthrosis of the spine.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17: 494-503
        • Sethi N
        • Devney J
        • Steiner HL
        • Riew KD
        Diagnosing cervical fusion: a comprehensive literature review.
        Asian Spine J. 2008; 2: 127-143
        • Vanichkachorn J
        • Peppers T
        • Bullard D
        • Stanley SK
        • Linovitz RJ
        • Ryaby JT
        A prospective clinical and radiographic 12-month outcome study of patients undergoing single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease utilizing a novel viable allogeneic, cancellous, bone matrix (trinity evolution) with a comparison to historical controls.
        Eur Spine J. 2016; 25: 2233-2238
        • Zagra A
        • Zagra L
        • Scaramuzzo L
        • Minoia L
        • Archetti M
        • Giudici F
        Anterior cervical fusion for radicular-disc conflict performed by three different procedures: clinical and radiographic analysis at long-term follow-up.
        Eur Spine J. 2013; 22: S905-S909
        • Lofgren H
        • Engquist M
        • Hoffmann P
        • Sigstedt B
        • Vavruch L
        Clinical and radiological evaluation of Trabecular Metal and the Smith-Robinson technique in anterior cervical fusion for degenerative disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 2-year follow-up.
        Eur Spine J. 2010; 19: 464-473
        • Dai LY
        • Jiang LS
        Anterior cervical fusion with interbody cage containing beta-tricalcium phosphate augmented with plate fixation: a prospective randomized study with 2-year follow-up.
        Eur Spine J. 2008; 17: 698-705
        • Landis JR
        • Koch GG
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • Park DK
        • Rhee JM
        • Kim SS
        • Enyo Y
        • Yoshiok K
        Do CT scans overestimate the fusion rate after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015; 28: 41-46
        • Buchowski JM
        • Liu G
        • Bunmaprasert T
        • Rose PS
        • Riew KD
        Anterior cervical fusion assessment: surgical exploration versus radiographic evaluation.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33: 1185-1191