International Journal of Clinical Science and Medical Research

Background: Cervical corpectomy with reconstruction using a titanium mesh cage (Harm’s cage) is a standard procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, trauma, and tumours. However, cage size selection in Nigerian patients has relied on intraoperative estimation due to a lack of normative morphometric data. This study aimed to determine the average dimensions (length and width) of Harm’s cage required for single‑level and double‑level cervical corpectomy at C3–C6 based on preoperative CT measurements.

Methods: A retrospective study of 78 consecutive patients who underwent single‑level or double‑level cervical corpectomy with Titanium mesh cage reconstruction at the National Orthopaedic Hospital Dala, Kano, from January 2022 to December 2025 was conducted. Preoperative CT was used to measure the vertebral body height (cranial‑caudal) and transverse width at C3, C4, C5 and C6. Cage length was derived from the corpectomy defect height; cage width was matched to the transverse width at the level of the cage.

Results: A total of 78 patients (mean age 52.4±11.6 years; 65.4% male) underwent 52 single‑level (C4 (n=18), C5 (n=22), C6 (n=12)) and 26 double‑level (C4–C5 (n=14), C5–C6 (n=12)) corpectomies. The mean vertebral body heights (mm) were: C3 14.2±1.5, C4 14.6±1.4, C5 14.4±1.5, C6 13.8±1.3. The mean vertebral body widths (mm) were: C3 24.5±2.2, C4 25.1±2.0, C5 25.4±2.1, C6 24.8±2.0. The average cage lengths for single‑level corpectomy were: C4 14.8±1.4 mm, C5 14.6±1.5 mm, C6 14.0±1.3 mm. For double‑level, the average cage lengths were: C4–C5 28.5±2.1 mm, C5–C6 27.8±2.0 mm. The average cage width for all levels was 24.8±2.2 mm.

Conclusions: The average cervical vertebral body height in Nigerian patients ranges from 13.8 to 14.6 mm, and width from 24.5 to 25.4 mm. For single‑level corpectomy, a Titanium mesh cage length of 14–15 mm is appropriate; for double‑level, 28–29 mm. These data provide the first Nigerian reference for selecting cage dimensions, reducing intraoperative guesswork and potential complications.

Titanium mesh cage, cervical corpectomy, titanium mesh cage, cervical spine dimensions, Nigeria

1. Edwards CC, Heller JG, Murakami H. Corpectomy versus discectomy for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2002;27(16):1717-1724.
2. Eleraky MA, Llanos C, Sonntag VKH. Cervical corpectomy: report of 185 cases and review of the literature. J Neurosurg. 1999;90(1 Suppl):35-41.
3. Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT. Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium mesh cages. Spine. 1999;24(9):845-851.
4. Riew KD, Rhee JM. The use of titanium mesh cages in cervical spine reconstruction. Spine J. 2003;3(3):193-200.
5. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine. 2000;25(20):2646-2655.
6. Narotam PK, Pauley SM, McGinn GJ. Titanium mesh cages for cervical spinal reconstruction: a prospective clinical and radiological study. J Neurosurg. 2003;98(2 Suppl):171-177.
7. Das K, Bohlman HH. The use of titanium mesh cages in anterior cervical corpectomy. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002;33(2):367-374.
8. Chen Y, Chen D, Guo Y, Wang X, Lu X, He Z, et al. Subsidence of titanium mesh cage after anterior cervical corpectomy: risk factors and outcomes. Spine. 2018;43(15):E891-E897.
9. Tan LA, Riew KD, Traynelis VC. Cervical corpectomy cage sizing: a simple method to prevent subsidence. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(5):635-640.
10. Lau D, Song Y, Guan Z, La Marca F, Park P. Radiological outcomes of static versus expandable titanium cages after anterior cervical corpectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(3):342-348.
11. Yang X, Liu L, Song Y, Kong Q, Zeng J, Wang Y. Titanium mesh cage versus iliac crest autograft in anterior cervical corpectomy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(8):1842-1851.
12. Nnadi C, Orakwe S, Nwadinigwe C, Ede O. Challenges of spinal surgery in a developing country: a Nigerian perspective. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(Suppl 2):S210-S215.
13. Gilad I, Nissan M. A study of the vertebral body dimensions of the cervical spine in different ethnic groups. Spine. 1986;11(6):581-585.
14. Shin JH, Park YK. Ethnic differences in cervical vertebral dimensions: implications for spine surgery. Asian Spine J. 2021;15(2):245-252.
15. Odes R, Brits D. Morphometric analysis of the cervical spine in a South African cadaveric sample. J Anat. 2019;234(5):678-688.
16. Nwankwo OE, Umaru H, Onyemaechi N, Nottidge T. Morphometric study of the cervical vertebral bodies in a Nigerian population using CT. Niger J Clin Pract. 2021;24(6):845-851.
17. Panjabi MM, Duranceau J, Goel V, Oxland T, Takata K. Cervical human vertebrae: quantitative three‑dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine. 1991;16(8):861-869.
18. Xu R, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting RA, Wong FY. Anatomy of C2–C7: a morphometric study. J Spinal Disord. 1995;8(5):389-394.
19. Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Claes L. Effects of cage geometry on the biomechanical stability of an anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(1):63-69.
20. Kankam SB, Okon II, Habibzadeh A, Adeyemo A, Eskandari R, Salami AO, et al. Navigating challenges in spine surgery in Nigeria: the current state and strategies for advancing spine care. Neurosurg Rev. 2024;47(1):274.
21. Ogunlade SO, Ayankunle OM, Omotoso SA. The challenges of spinal injury management in a developing country. Niger J Orthop Trauma. 2019;18(1):12-17.