scholarly journals Mono-segment fixation method versus short-segment fixation methods, in treatment of mono-segmental lumbar tuberculosis; using titanium mesh cage with interbody fusion retrospective case-control study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongqi Zhang ◽  
Daudi Romani Manini ◽  
Yuxiang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fixation Method ◽  
Short Segment ◽  
Fixation Methods ◽  
Mesh Cage ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Short Segment Fixation

Abstract Background: 1/3rd-2/3rd of the remaining vertebral height can hold and withstand the standard pedicle screws; some surgeons have adopted affected vertebral fixation to avoid the complications of both long and short segment fixation during surgical correction of lumbar tuberculosis (TB).This study aimed to compare efficacy of mono-segment-fixation versus the short-segment fixation methods with the use of titanium mesh-cage (TMCs) and interbody fusion in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar spinal TB via single stage posterior-only approach. Methods ： A retrospective review was done among 34 lumbar spinal TB patients. These patients underwent debridement, interbody fusion with (TMCs) by either Mono-segment fixation or short-segment fixation methods. Eighteen patients underwent mono-segment fixation method, group (A). While 16 patients underwent short-segment fixation method, group (B). Fusion, deformity correction, and decompression were done within the affected segment in group (A), while for group (B) fusion extended one level above and below the affected vertebrae . Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, degree of deformity correction and neurological functions were analyzed. Results: Comparing group (A) vs (B), average operation time in minutes (mins) for group A was 144.2±16.5, group B was 170.3 ± 25.0 (P=0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss in milliliter (mls) was 502.8±151.9 for group (A) and 742.5±143.2 for group (B) (p ˂0.05). The mean cobb’s angle between group A versus group B; preoperative was 23.8 ± 6.5 0 vs 22.2±9.2 0 (p=0.6), immediate post operatively was 8.0±3.5 0 vs 8.3±5.7 0 (p=0.847) and at final follow-up was 8.9±3.1 0 vs 9.2 ± 5.9 0 (p=0.866) respectively. Correction rate between group (A) vs group (B) was 15.7±3.8 0 vs 13.9±5.5 0 (p=0.285) and loss of correction was 1.2±0.7 0 vs 1.1±0.7 (p=0.817) respectively. No significant differences in neurological recovery between the two groups were founds. Conclusion: Under precise conditions: mono-segment fixation method, debridement, interbody fusion with TMCs, and posterior instrumentation can effectively reconstruct the spine, maintain stability and correct kyphosis deformity similar to short-segment fixation method. Also, it can relieve pain and improve neurological symptoms. When used in combination with anti-TB chemotherapy in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar TB via a single-stage posterior-only approach.

scholarly journals Mono-segment Fixation Method Versus Short-segment Fixation Methods, In Treatment Of Mono-segmental Lumbar Tuberculosis; Using Titanium Mesh Cage With Interbody Fusion: Retrospective Cohort Study.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongqi Zhang ◽  
Daudi Romani Manini ◽  
Yuxiang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fixation Method ◽  
Short Segment ◽  
Fixation Methods ◽  
Mesh Cage ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Short Segment Fixation

Abstract Background ： 1/3rd-2/3rd of the remaining vertebral height can hold and withstand the standard pedicle screws; some surgeons have adopted affected vertebral fixation to avoid the complications of both long and short segment fixation during surgical correction of lumbar tuberculosis (TB).This study aimed to compare efficacy of mono-segment-fixation versus the short-segment fixation methods with the use of titanium mesh-cage (TMCs) and interbody fusion in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar spinal TB via single stage posterior-only approach. Methods ： A retrospective review was done among 34 lumbar spinal TB patients. These patients underwent debridement, interbody fusion with (TMCs) by either Mono-segment fixation or short-segment fixation methods. Eighteen patients underwent mono-segment fixation method, group (A). While 16 patients underwent short-segment fixation method, group (B). Fusion, deformity correction, and decompression were done within the affected segment in group (A), while for group (B) fusion extended one level above and below the affected vertebrae . Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, degree of deformity correction and neurological functions were analyzed. Results: Comparing group (A) vs (B), average operation time in minutes (mins) for group A was 144.2±16.5, group B was 170.3 ± 25.0 (P=0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss in milliliter (mls) was 502.8±151.9 for group (A) and 742.5±143.2 for group (B) (p ˂0.05). The mean cobb’s angle between group A versus group B; preoperative was 23.8 ± 6.5 0 vs 22.2±9.2 0 (p=0.6), immediate post operatively was 8.0±3.5 0 vs 8.3±5.7 0 (p=0.847) and at final follow-up was 8.9±3.1 0 vs 9.2 ± 5.9 0 (p=0.866) respectively. Correction rate between group (A) vs group (B) was 15.7±3.8 0 vs 13.9±5.5 0 (p=0.285) and loss of correction was 1.2±0.7 0 vs 1.1±0.7 (p=0.817) respectively. No significant differences in neurological recovery between the two groups were founds. Conclusion: Under precise conditions: mono-segment fixation method, debridement, interbody fusion with TMCs, and posterior instrumentation can effectively reconstruct the spine, maintain stability and correct kyphosis deformity similar to short-segment fixation method. Also, it can relieve pain and improve neurological symptoms. When used in combination with anti-TB chemotherapy in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar TB via a single-stage posterior-only approach.

scholarly journals Mono-segment fixation method versus short-segment fixation methods, in treatment of mono-segmental lumbar tuberculosis; using titanium mesh cage with interbody fusion retrospective case-control study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongqi Zhang ◽  
Daudi Romani Manini ◽  
Yuxiang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fixation Method ◽  
Short Segment ◽  
Fixation Methods ◽  
Mesh Cage ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Short Segment Fixation

Abstract Background ： 1/3rd-2/3rd of the remaining vertebral height can hold and withstand the standard pedicle screws; some surgeons have adopted affected vertebral fixation to avoid the complications of both long and short segment fixation during surgical correction of lumbar tuberculosis (TB).This study aimed to compare efficacy of mono-segment-fixation versus the short-segment fixation methods with the use of titanium mesh-cage (TMCs) and interbody fusion in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar spinal TB via single stage posterior-only approach. Methods ： A retrospective review was done among 34 lumbar spinal TB patients. These patients underwent debridement, interbody fusion with (TMCs) by either Mono-segment fixation or short-segment fixation methods. Eighteen patients underwent mono-segment fixation method, group (A). While 16 patients underwent short-segment fixation method, group (B). Fusion, deformity correction, and decompression were done within the affected segment in group (A), while for group (B) fusion extended one level above and below the affected vertebrae . Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, degree of deformity correction and neurological functions were analyzed. Results: Comparing group (A) vs (B), average operation time in minutes (mins) for group A was 144.2±16.5, group B was 170.3 ± 25.0 (P=0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss in milliliter (mls) was 502.8±151.9 for group (A) and 742.5±143.2 for group (B) (p ˂0.05). The mean cobb’s angle between group A versus group B; preoperative was 23.8 ± 6.5 0 vs 22.2±9.2 0 (p=0.6), immediate post operatively was 8.0±3.5 0 vs 8.3±5.7 0 (p=0.847) and at final follow-up was 8.9±3.1 0 vs 9.2 ± 5.9 0 (p=0.866) respectively. Correction rate between group (A) vs group (B) was 15.7±3.8 0 vs 13.9±5.5 0 (p=0.285) and loss of correction was 1.2±0.7 0 vs 1.1±0.7 (p=0.817) respectively. No significant differences in neurological recovery between the two groups were founds. Conclusion: Under precise conditions: mono-segment fixation method, debridement, interbody fusion with TMCs, and posterior instrumentation can effectively reconstruct the spine, maintain stability and correct kyphosis deformity similar to short-segment fixation method. Also, it can relieve pain and improve neurological symptoms. When used in combination with anti-TB chemotherapy in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar TB via a single-stage posterior-only approach.

scholarly journals Mono-segment fixation method versus short-segment fixation methods, in treatment of mono-segmental lumbar tuberculosis; using titanium mesh cage with interbody fusion retrospective case-control study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongqi Zhang(New Corresponding Author) ◽  
Daudi Romani Manini(Former Corresponding Author) ◽  
Yuxiang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fixation Method ◽  
Short Segment ◽  
Fixation Methods ◽  
Mesh Cage ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Short Segment Fixation

Abstract Background ： 1/3rd-2/3rd of the remaining vertebral height can hold and withstand the standard pedicle screws; some surgeons have adopted affected vertebral fixation to avoid the complications of both long and short segment fixation during surgical correction of lumbar tuberculosis (TB).This study aimed to compare efficacy of mono-segment-fixation versus the short-segment fixation methods with the use of titanium mesh-cage (TMCs) and interbody fusion in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar spinal TB via single stage posterior-only approach. Methods ： A retrospective review was done among 34 lumbar spinal TB patients. These patients underwent debridement, interbody fusion with (TMCs) by either Mono-segment fixation or short-segment fixation methods. Eighteen patients underwent mono-segment fixation method, group (A). While 16 patients underwent short-segment fixation method, group (B). Fusion, deformity correction, and decompression were done within the affected segment in group (A), while for group (B) fusion extended one level above and below the affected vertebrae . Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, degree of deformity correction and neurological functions were analyzed. Results: Comparing group (A) vs (B), average operation time in minutes (mins) for group A was 144.2±16.5, group B was 170.3 ± 25.0 (P=0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss in milliliter (mls) was 502.8±151.9 for group (A) and 742.5±143.2 for group (B) (p ˂0.05). The mean cobb’s angle between group A versus group B; preoperative was 23.8 ± 6.5 0 vs 22.2±9.2 0 (p=0.6), immediate post operatively was 8.0±3.5 0 vs 8.3±5.7 0 (p=0.847) and at final follow-up was 8.9±3.1 0 vs 9.2 ± 5.9 0 (p=0.866) respectively. Correction rate between group (A) vs group (B) was 15.7±3.8 0 vs 13.9±5.5 0 (p=0.285) and loss of correction was 1.2±0.7 0 vs 1.1±0.7 (p=0.817) respectively. No significant differences in neurological recovery between the two groups were founds. Conclusion: Under precise conditions: mono-segment fixation method, debridement, interbody fusion with TMCs, and posterior instrumentation can effectively reconstruct the spine, maintain stability and correct kyphosis deformity similar to short-segment fixation method. Also, it can relieve pain and improve neurological symptoms. When used in combination with anti-TB chemotherapy in the treatment of mono-segmental lumbar TB via a single-stage posterior-only approach.

scholarly journals A Modified Method to Treat Severe Asymptomatic Pre-existing Degeneration of Adjacent Segment: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinliang Zhang ◽  
Jinwen Zhu ◽  
Yibing Li ◽  
Dingjun Hao ◽  
Wenjie Gao
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Modified Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract Background: Pre-existing degeneration of adjacent segment is an important risk factor for adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), but limited and controversial studies have addressed its management.Methods: Patients with symptomatic degeneration of the L5/S1 segment warranting surgical interference and severe asymptomatic degeneration of the L4/5 segment were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, those who underwent interbody fusion in the causative (L5/S1) segment and distraction of the intervertebral space and facet fusion in the adjacent L4/5 segment were included as Group A (n=103). Patients who underwent interbody fusion in both L5/S1 and L4/5 segments were included as Group B (n=81). Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated.Results: Mean follow-up was 58.5 months (range, 48-75 m). No significant difference in clinical outcomes or the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in L3/4 segment was found between Groups A and B. Compared with Group B, less bleeding (315±84 vs. 532±105 ml), shorter operation time (107±34 vs. 158±55 min) and lower costs (13,830±2640 vs. 16,020±3380 US$) were found in Group A (P<0.05). In Group A, disc height ratio (DHR) of L4/5 segment was significantly increased from preoperative value of 0.40±0.13 to last follow-up value of 0.53±0.18 (P<0.05), while the degree of canal stenosis (DCS) was decreased from preoperative value of 34.3±11.2% to last follow-up value of 15.9±9.3% (P<0.05). Conclusions: This modified method could be effective in treating severe asymptomatic pre-existing degeneration of adjacent segment in lumbar spine.

scholarly journals A Comparison of the Bridge-type ROI-C Interbody Fusion Cage System and Titanium Mesh Graft With Titanium Plate Fixation in 2-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With Plating and Cage System: A Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuangjun He ◽  
Zhangzhe Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Shao ◽  
Changhao Zhang ◽  
Xinfeng Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Cage System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Bridge Type ◽  
Group B ◽  
Fusion Cage

Abstract Objective To explore the clinical efficacy and radioactive results of the bridge-type ROI-C interbody fusion cage (ROI-C) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating and cage system (ACDF) for cervical spondylopathy. Methods From January 2014 to January 2018, 45 patients undergoing ACDF were retrospectively analyzed, including 24 cases of ROI-C (group A) and 21 cases of ACDF (group B). The operation time, blood loss, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA), postoperative complications, imaging results including cervical Cobb angle and fusion were compared between groups. Results All patients were successfully treated with surgery, and no cerebrospinal fluid leakage, esophageal fistula, or hoarseness occurred after surgery. The operation time and blood loss in group A were lower than those in group B (P < 0.05). During the follow-up period, JOA score increased and NDI score decreased after operation (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of dysphagia in group A was lower than that in group B at 1 month and 3 months after operation (P < 0.05), but the final follow-up results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of dysphagia between the two groups (P > 0.05). In group A, the fusion rate was 83.3% 3 months after surgery and 100% at the last follow-up. The rate of adjacent level ossification development was 12.5%. In group B, the fusion rate was 85.7% 3 months after surgery and 100% at the last follow-up. The rate of adjacent level ossification development was 23.8%. Conclusion Both ROI-C and ACDF can achieve satisfactory results, but ROI-C has shorter operation time, less bleeding and lower incidence of dysphagia in the short term.

scholarly journals A modified method to treat severe asymptomatic pre‐existing degeneration of adjacent segment: a retrospective case‐control study

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinliang Zhang ◽  
Jinwen Zhu ◽  
Yibing Li ◽  
Dingjun Hao ◽  
Wenjie Gao
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Modified Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract Background Pre-existing degeneration of adjacent segment is an important risk factor for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD), but only limited and controversial studies have addressed its management. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients with symptomatic degeneration of the L5/S1 segment warranting surgical interference and severe asymptomatic degeneration of the L4/5 segment. Of these patients, those who underwent interbody fusion of the causative (L5/S1) segment and distraction of the intervertebral space and facet fusion of the adjacent L4/5 segment were included in Group A (n = 103), while those who underwent interbody fusion of both the L5/S1 and L4/5 segments were included in Group B (n = 81). Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. Results Mean follow-up time was 58.5 months (range, 48–75 months). We found no significant difference in clinical outcomes or incidence of ASD in the L3/4 segment between Groups A and B. Compared with Group B, Group A experienced less bleeding (315 ± 84 ml vs. 532 ± 105 ml), shorter operation time (107 ± 34 min vs. 158 ± 55 min) and lower costs (US $13,830 ± $2640 vs. US $16,020 ± $3380; P < 0.05). In Group A, the disc height ratio (DHR) of the L4/5 segment was significantly increased from a preoperative value of 0.40 ± 0.13 to a last–follow-up value of 0.53 ± 0.18 (P < 0.05), while the degree of canal stenosis (DCS) was decreased from a preoperative value of 34.3 ± 11.2% to a last–follow-up value of 15.9 ± 9.3 % (P < 0.05). Conclusions This modified method could be effective in treating severe asymptomatic pre-existing degeneration of adjacent segment in the lumbar spine.

scholarly journals A comparison of the bridge-type ROI-C interbody fusion cage system and ACDF with plating and cage system in 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuangjun He ◽  
Zhangzhe Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Shao ◽  
Changhao Zhang ◽  
Xinfeng Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Postoperative Dysphagia ◽  
Cage System ◽  
Group A ◽  
Bridge Type ◽  
Group B ◽  
Fusion Cage

Abstract Objective: A study was conducted to explore the clinical efficacy and radioactive results of the bridge-type ROI-C interbody fusion cage (ROI-C) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating and cage system (ACDF) for cervical spondylopathy.Methods: From January 2014 to January 2018, 45 patients who underwent operations were retrospectively analyzed, including 24 cases of ROI-C (group A) and 21 cases of ACDF (group B). The operation time, blood loss, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA), postoperative complications, imaging results including cervical Cobb angle, and fusion were compared between groups.Results: All patients were successfully treated with surgery. No cerebrospinal fluid leakage, esophageal fistula, or hoarseness occurred after the surgery. The operation time and blood loss in group A were lower than those in group B (P<0.05). During the follow-up period, JOA score increased and NDI score decreased after the operation (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found between the groups (P>0.05). In group A, the incidence of postoperative dysphagia was 12.5%, which returned to normal after 1 month. In group B, the incidence of postoperative dysphagia was 38.1%, which was 19% after 1 month and 4.8% at the final follow-up. In group A, the fusion rate was 83.3% at 3 months after surgery and 100% at the last follow-up. The rate of adjacent level ossification development was 12.5%. In group B, the fusion rate was 85.7% at 3 months after surgery and 100% at the last follow-up. The rate of adjacent level ossification development was 23.8%.Conclusion: Both ROI-C and ACDF achieved satisfactory results, but ROI-C had a shorter operation time, less bleeding, and lower incidence of dysphagia in the short term.

scholarly journals Surgical management of consecutive multisegment thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis: anterior-only approach vs. posterior-only approach.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Lei Luo ◽  
Liehua Liu ◽  
Pei Li ◽  
Lichuan Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Loss Rate ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Surgery Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Functional Scores ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract Purpose: To compare the efficacy, safety, and technical characteristics of anterior-only and posterior-only approach surgeries for the treatment of consecutive multisegment thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis.Methods: Thirty-five patients who developed consecutive multisegment thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis from September 2012 to May 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Group A was the posterior-only surgery group, and group B was the anterior-only surgery group. The data on the surgery, deformity correction, functional scores and complications were compared between the two groups.Results: There was no significant difference in the operation time or blood loss between groups A and B (P>0.05). The preoperative average Cobb angle of kyphosis in groups A and B were 36.2±15.2° and 27.9±7.7°, respectively, which significantly decreased to 4.9±11.8° and 10.4±5.6° after the operation, respectively (P<0.05). At the final follow-up, the angles were 7.1±10.5° and 14.6±8.0°, respectively. The correction angle and correction rate in group A (31.3±16.6°, 88.6±43.6%) were greater than those in group B (17.5±4.4°, 64.9±14.0%) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the loss angle between groups A and B (P>0.05), but the loss rate in group B (24.0±27.8%) was higher than that in group A (9.6±10.2%) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The posterior-only and anterior-only approaches can lead to satisfactory clinical results in the treatment of patients with consecutive multisegment thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis. With posterior-only surgery, kyphosis can be better corrected, and the correction can be better maintained than with anterior-only surgery.

scholarly journals Comparison between single anterior and single posterior approaches of debridement interbody fusion and fixation for the treatment of mono-segment lumbar spine tuberculosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hangli Wu ◽  
Yaqing Cui ◽  
Liqun Gong ◽  
Jun Liu ◽  
Yayi Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Posterior Approach ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Group A ◽  
Spine Tuberculosis ◽  
Group B ◽  
Single Posterior Approach

Abstract Purpose To compare the efficacy of single anterior and single posterior approach of debridement, interbody fusion, and fixation for the treatment of mono-segment lumbar spine tuberculosis (TB) patients. Methods Eighty-seven patients with mono-segment lumbar TB who underwent debridement, interbody fusion, and fixation through either single anterior (Group A) or single posterior approach (Group B) from January 2007 to January 2017 were enrolled in this study. The duration of the operation, blood loss, complication rate, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Frankel scale, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), kyphosis angle, correction rate, correction loss, and time taken for bone graft fusion were compared between the groups. Results The average period of follow-up was 34.3 ± 9.5 months (24–56 months). No significant differences were observed between patients in Group A and patients in Group B in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of illness and preoperative evaluative indices (P > 0.05). The mean operation time and blood loss was significantly higher in Group A (P = 0.000), along with a slightly higher rate of complications compared with Group B (P = 0.848). The VAS, ODI and Frankel scale scores showed significant improvement in both groups (P = 0.000), along with the ESR, CRP and kyphosis indices (P = 0.000), which were similar in both groups at the final follow-up. Conclusion Both single anterior and single posterior approaches of debridement, interbody fusion and fixation are effective for mono-segment lumbar TB patients, although the single posterior approach is of a shorter duration and results in less blood loss.

scholarly journals A Comparison Of The Bridge-Type Roi-c Interbody Fusion Cage System And Titanium Mesh Graft With Titanium Plate Fixation In 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion With Plating And Cage System: A Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuangjun He ◽  
Zhangzhe Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Shao ◽  
Changhao Zhang ◽  
Xinfeng Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Cage System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Bridge Type ◽  
Group B ◽  
Fusion Cage

Abstract Objective: To explore the clinical efficacy and radioactive results of the bridge-type ROI-C interbody fusion cage (ROI-C) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating and cage system (ACDF) for cervical spondylopathy.Methods: From January 2014 to January 2018, 45 patients undergoing ACDF were retrospectively analyzed, including 24 cases of ROI-C (group A) and 21 cases of ACDF (group B). The operation time, blood loss, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA), postoperative complications, imaging results including cervical Cobb angle and fusion were compared between groups.Results: All patients were successfully treated with surgery, and no cerebrospinal fluid leakage, esophageal fistula, or hoarseness occurred after surgery. The operation time and blood loss in group A were lower than those in group B (P<0.05). During the follow-up period, JOA score increased and NDI score decreased after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups (P>0.05). The incidence of dysphagia in group A was lower than that in group B at 1 month and 3 months after operation (P<0.05), but the final follow-up results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of dysphagia between the two groups (P>0.05). In group A, the fusion rate was 83.3% 3 months after surgery and 100% at the last follow-up. The rate of adjacent level ossification development was 12.5%. In group B, the fusion rate was 85.7% 3 months after surgery and 100% at the last follow-up. The rate of adjacent level ossification development was 23.8%.Conclusion: Both ROI-C and ACDF can achieve satisfactory results, but ROI-C has shorter operation time, less bleeding and lower incidence of dysphagia in the short term.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document