Effectiveness comparison of Zero-profile interbody fusion implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device: a clinical and radiological study

Abstract Background Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a successful strategy to relieve the symptoms caused by cervical degenerative disease. Postoperative dysphagia is one complication of this kind of surgery. We performed this study to compare the clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and complications of　ACDF with a Zero-profile implant (Zero-P) and titanium plate and cage.Methods There were 68 patients received ACDF of single level, 35 patients with Zero-profile implant (Zero-p group) and 33 patients with traditional plate and cage (Cage group), from C3–C7 during 2014 to 2016. Collecting and analyzing of clinical and radiological data were performed. Patients were followed-up at least 1 year after surgery. The operation time, blood loss, Japan Department of Orthopedics Association (JOA) score, pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) score and dysphagia score were recorded. Additionally, changes in cervical lordosis, fusion rate and adjacent segment degeneration were analyzed as well.Results For neurologic outcomes, the JOA, VAS and NDI were statistically equivalent between the two groups (P>0.05). For radiographic outcomes, there were no significant differences in the C2-7 Cobb angles, segmental Cobb angle and incidence of subsidence at the final follow-up (P>0.05). No degenerative changes was found in the Zero-p group, whereas 5 patients in the Cage group developed degeneration in adjacent segments (P<0.05). Also, the incidence of postoperative dysphagia is higher in Cage group than in Zero-p group at 3 months and 12 months (P<0.05).Conclusions Both Zero-profile implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device were demonstrated to be effective and safe strategies in this study. Considering the lower incidences of dysphagia and degenerative changes, the Zero-profile implant is a good succedaneum.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness comparison of Zero-profile interbody fusion implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device: a clinical and radiological study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-16292/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jun Zhang ◽

Xiangyu Tang ◽

Wei Xiong ◽

Hua Wu ◽

Chaoxu Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Interbody Fusion ◽

Neck Disability Index ◽

Operation Time ◽

Degenerative Changes ◽

Adjacent Segment ◽

Fusion Device ◽

Cage Group ◽

Cervical Plate ◽

Anterior Cervical Plate ◽

Interbody Fusion Device

Abstract Purpose This study was to compare the clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and complications of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a Zero-profile implant (Zero-P) and traditional plate and cage. Methods There were 68 patients received ACDF of single level, 35 patients with Zero-profile implant (Zero-p group) and 33 patients with traditional plate and cage (Cage group), from C3–C7 during 2014 to 2016. Collecting and analyzing of clinical and radiological data were performed. Patients were followed-up at least 1 year after surgery. The operation time, blood loss, Japan Department of Orthopedics Association (JOA) score, pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) score and dysphagia score were recorded. Additionally, changes in cervical lordosis, fusion rate and adjacent segment degeneration were analyzed as well. Results For neurologic outcomes, the JOA, VAS and NDI were statistically equivalent between the two groups (P>0.05). For radiographic outcomes, there were no significant differences in the C2-7 Cobb angles, segmental Cobb angle and incidence of subsidence at the final follow-up (P>0.05). No degenerative changes was found in the Zero-p group, whereas 5 patients in the Cage group developed degeneration in adjacent segments (P<0.05). Also, the incidence of postoperative dysphagia is higher in Cage group than in Zero-p group at 3 months and 12 months (P<0.05). Conclusions Both Zero-profile implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device were demonstrated to be effective and safe strategies in this study. Considering the lower incidences of dysphagia and degenerative changes, the Zero-profile implant is a good succedaneum.

Download Full-text

Biomechanical Comparison of Single-Level Cervical Plate Fusion and Interbody Cage Fusion

Advances in Bioengineering ◽

10.1115/imece2002-32628 ◽

2002 ◽

Author(s):

Denis J. DiAngelo ◽

Amanda L. Thomas ◽

Kevin T. Foley

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Interbody Cage ◽

Biomechanical Stability ◽

Single Level ◽

Fusion Device ◽

Cervical Plate ◽

Anterior Cervical Plate ◽

Biomechanical Comparison ◽

Interbody Fusion Device

Anterior cervical graft fusion alone or supplemented with an anterior cervical plate instrumentation may be used to treat the diseased cervical spine. An anterior cervical plate is intended to restore the mechanical integrity of the operated spine and decrease graft complications. An alternative method to single-level graft fusion is to use an interbody fusion device. The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of a single-level graft-plated cervical construct with an interbody cage device.

Download Full-text

Longitudinal spinous-splitting laminoplasty with coral bone for the treatment of cervical adjacent segment degenerative disease: A 5-year follow-up study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-17535/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Wei He ◽

Qilong Wang ◽

Wei Tian ◽

Bing Han ◽

Yumei Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Internal Fixation ◽

Neck Disability Index ◽

Degenerative Disease ◽

Cervical Disc ◽

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ◽

Adjacent Segment ◽

Vas Score ◽

Cervical Plate ◽

Anterior Cervical Plate

Abstract Background: To analyze the causes of cervical adjacent segment degenerative disease (ASDis), explore the surgical results of longitudinal spinous-splitting laminoplasty with coral bone (SLAC) during cervical reoperation, and accumulate data on reoperation with SLAC in a primary hospital.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study. From 1998 to 2014, 52 patients underwent cervical reoperation for ASDis using SLAC at our hospital. Among them, 39 were treated with anterior cervical fusion and internal fixation in the first operation (anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion [ACCF], n=24; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [ACDF], n=11; and cervical disc arthroplasty [CDA], n=4).Results: In patients who underwent an anterior cervical approach in the first instance, ASDis was significantly higher in the C3/4 gap than in other gaps. In the ACCF group, the lateral radiograph of the cervical spine revealed that the distance between the anterior cervical plate and adjacent segment disc in15 cases (62.5%) was <5 mm, and five cases (12.8%) had internal fixation screws that broke into the annulus of the adjacent segment. After the first SLAC, ASDis occurred in C2/3 and C3/4 in four (30.8%) and eight cases (61.5%), respectively. Post-reoperation, all cases were follow-up for >5 (average, 6.2) years. Comparing pre-reoperation and last follow-up values, the mean Japanese Orthopedic Association score was 10.2±1.5 versus15.5±0.7 (P=0.03), neck disability index was 26.2 versus13.6 points (P=0.01), upper-limb visual analog scale (VAS) score was 6.1 versus2.6 points (P=0.04), and neck and shoulder VAS score was 6.6 versus 2.1 points (P=0.03).Conclusions: ASDis was primarily caused by 1) a distance of <5 mm between the anterior cervical plate and adjacent segment disc and 2) the screw breaking through the adjacent segmental annulus. SLAC proved to be a simple technique, with clear local anatomy and satisfactory clinical results.

Download Full-text