The Journal of Practical Medicine >
Clinical efficacy and imaging analysis of zero⁃profile interbody fusion cage versus interbody fusion cage combined with titanium plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
Received date: 2024-04-26
Online published: 2024-11-25
Objective Compare and analyze the clinical efficacy and imaging differences of zero?profile interbody fusion cage and interbody fusion cage combined with titanium plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion （ACDF）. Methods The clinical data of 40 patients who underwent ACDF in our hospital from February 2017 to November 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them， 22 patients were treated with zero?profile interbody fusion cage （zero?profile group）， and 18 patients were treated with interbody fusion cage combined with titanium plate （titanium plate group）. Record the operation time and intraoperative blood loss of the two groups. Japanese Orthopaedic Association （JOA） score， neck disability index （NDI） score and postoperative dysphagia were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy. Measure the cervical Cobb angle （C2?C7）， fusion segment Cobb angle， average intervertebral space height， and fusion segment height. Evaluate the fusion and subsidence of the cage by observing the internal and external bone bridging of the cage through postoperative CT. Results There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups （P > 0.05）. The JOA score， NDI score， average intervertebral space height， and fusion segment height of the two groups after operation were significantly improved compared with those before operation （P < 0.05）. The incidence of postoperative dysphagia in the zero?profile group was significantly lower than that in the titanium plate group （P < 0.05）. The Cobb angle of the fusion segment in the zero?profile group at 3 months after operation was significantly improved compared with that before operation （P < 0.05）. There was no significant difference in the other radiographic parameters between the two groups at each follow?up time point （P > 0.05）， except for the Cobb angle of the fusion segment at 3 months after operation and at the last follow?up （P < 0.05） and the difference in the extra?fusion bone bridge （ExGBB） between the two groups at the last follow?up （P < 0.05）. Conclusions In ACDF， the clinical efficacy of zero?profile interbody fusion cage and interbody fusion cage combined with titanium plate is similar， both of which can significantly improve cervical function and postoperative imaging indicators. However， the zero?profile interbody fusion cage significantly reduced the incidence of dysphagia compared with the interbody fusion cage combined with titanium plate. In the end?stage follow?up， the former is better than the latter in improving the Cobb angle of the fusion segment and ExGBB， which is more conducive to promoting bone graft fusion. Both fuses have the risk of sinking.
Lishun XIONG , Jinghua TAN , Jian YIN , Yiguo. YAN . Clinical efficacy and imaging analysis of zero⁃profile interbody fusion cage versus interbody fusion cage combined with titanium plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2024 , 40(22) : 3165 -3171 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2024.22.008
| 1 | THEODORE N. Degenerative Cervical Spondylosis ［J］. N Engl J Med， 2020， 383（2）： 159-168. doi:10.1056/nejmra2003558 |
| 2 | 唐文娟， 贾欢欢， 杜峣楠，等. 以手三阳经为主针刺与督脉灸、透药艾灸疗法对风寒阻络型颈椎病的功能改善效果分析 ［J］. 实用医学杂志， 2024， 40（12）： 1744-1748. |
| 3 | YUE W M， BRODNER W， HIGHLAND T R. Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating： A 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study ［J］. Spine （Phila Pa 1976）， 2005， 30（19）： 2138-2144. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000180479.63092.17 |
| 4 | 甘璐，李沫，李盼，等. 对颈椎前路内固定术零切迹椎间融合器与钛板疗效的对比观察 ［J］. 骨科临床与研究杂志， 2022， 7（2）： 163-167+179. |
| 5 | KAHAER A R， CHEN M， SONG M T， et al. Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis： A systematic review and meta-analysis ［J］. J Orthop Surg Res， 2022， 17（1）： 506. doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03387-9 |
| 6 | ABUDOUAINI H， WU T， LIU H， et al. Comparison of the Postoperative Motion Stabilization Between Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion with a Zero-Profile Implant System and a Plate-Cage Construct ［J］. World Neurosurg， 2022， 166： e484-e494. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.07.033 |
| 7 | GAO H Z， TIAN Y， WANG T， et al. Comparison study of anterior cervical zero-profile fusion cage （ROI-C） and traditional titanium plate plus fusion technique for the treatment of spinal cord type cervical spondylosis ［J］. Medicine （Baltimore）， 2023， 102（50）： e36651. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000036651 |
| 8 | 白成瑞，李锦军，李想，等. 两种固定融合系统在颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合手术中的应用比较 ［J］. 临床和实验医学杂志， 2021， 20（1）： 49-53. |
| 9 | 姚晓玲，彭建城，许岳荣，等. 可变角度零切迹前路椎间融合内固定系统治疗脊髓型颈椎病：30个月随访 ［J］. 中国组织工程研究， 2022， 26（10）： 1377-1382. |
| 10 | GANDHI S D， FAHS A M， WAHLMEIER S T， et al. Radiographic Fusion Rates Following a Stand-alone Interbody Cage Versus an Anterior Plate Construct for Adjacent Segment Disease After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion ［J］. Spine （Phila Pa 1976）， 2020， 45（11）： 713-717. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000003387 |
| 11 | 李亚锋，贾象元，刘楚吟，等. 零切迹颈椎前路椎间融合术治疗双节段颈椎病术后矢状位参数的变化研究 ［J］. 中国中医骨伤科杂志， 2023， 31（1）：30-34. |
| 12 | SONG K S， CHAIWAT P， KIM H J， et al. Anterior cervical fusion assessment using reconstructed computed tomographic scans： Surgical confirmation of 254 segments ［J］. Spine （Phila Pa 1976）， 2013， 38（25）： 2171-2177. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000017 |
| 13 | LV Y， TIAN W， CHEN D， et al. The prevalence and associated factors of symptomatic cervical Spondylosis in Chinese adults： A community-based cross-sectional study ［J］. BMC Musculoskelet Disord， 2018， 19（1）：325. doi:10.1186/s12891-018-2234-0 |
| 14 | 赖春柏， 李世梁， 钟跃海，等. 呼吸模式重建的功能锻炼结合隔姜灸治疗椎动脉型颈椎病的临床研究 ［J］. 实用医学杂志， 2023， 39（11）： 1451-1456. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2023.11.022 |
| 15 | ZHANG J S， WANG X， TANG F， et al. Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion ［J］. Eur J Med Res， 2022， 27（1）：189. doi:10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w |
| 16 | 刘鸿麒，林崇杰，杨志武，等. 颈椎前路减压零切迹椎间融合器内固定治疗单节段神经根型颈椎病患者的效果 ［J］. 中国医疗器械信息， 2023， 29（1）： 80-82. |
| 17 | LIU Z， YANG Y， LAN J， et al. Changes in cervical alignment of Zero-profile device versus conventional cage-plate construct after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion： A meta-analysis ［J］. J Orthop Surg Res， 2022， 17（1）： 510. doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03400-1 |
| 18 | XIONG X， LIU J M， CHEN W W， et al. Outcomes of different zero-profile spacers in the treatment of two-level cervical degenerative disk disease ［J］. Eur Spine J， 2023. 32（7）： 2448-2458. doi:10.1007/s00586-023-07756-8 |
| 19 | PITZEN T R， CHROBOKJ， STULIK J， et al. Implant complications， fusion， loss of lordosis， and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates： Two-year results of a multi-centric， randomized， controlled study ［J］. Spine （Phila Pa 1976）， 2009， 34（7）： 641-646. doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e318198ce10 |
| 20 | 汪凡栋，郑佳状，陈宇，等. 颈椎零切迹椎间融合器治疗脊髓型颈椎病的短期疗效 ［J］. 国际骨科学杂志， 2023， 44（4）：321-326. |
| 21 | 许世林，白贵文，薛东鹤，等. 颈前路零切迹椎间融合器治疗邻近双节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效分析 ［J］. 医学信息， 2023， 36（16）： 98-103. |
| 22 | 赵建宇，张佳豪，涂振兴，等. ACDF中Zero-P与钛板治疗脊髓型颈椎病的早期疗效对比 ［J］. 华北理工大学学报（医学版）， 2023， 25（3）： 200-207. |
| 23 | 陈志斌，池开宇，卢奇昊，等. 颈前路零切迹椎间融合器治疗颈椎病的疗效及对睡眠质量的影响 ［J］. 世界睡眠医学杂志， 2022， 9（11）：1030-1032. |
| 24 | 柳杰，滕清华，张忠杰，等. 零切迹椎间融合器与传统钛板笼架治疗退行性颈椎病 ［J］. 中国矫形外科杂志， 2019， 27（13）： 1395-1399. |
| 25 | 蒋龙华. 零切迹颈前路融合器在单节段脊髓型颈椎病患者手术中的应用 ［J］. 当代医学， 2021， 27（1）： 94-96. |
| 26 | 于欢欢，曾诚，张印恩，等. 零切迹颈椎前路椎间融合器在颈椎退行性病变治疗中的应用综述 ［J］. 医疗卫生装备， 2023， 44（2）：103-109. |
| 27 | DUAN Y， YANG Y， WANG Y， et al. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with the zero-profile device versus plate and cage in treating cervical degenerative disc disease： A meta-analysis ［J］. J Clin Neurosci， 2016， 33（1）：11-18. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.046 |
| 28 | WANG Z， ZHU X， WANG Z， et al. Zero-P and ROI-C implants versus traditional titanium plate with cage to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy： Clinical and radiological results with 5 years of follow-up ［J］. BMC Musculoskelet Disord， 2023， 24（1）： 539. doi:10.1186/s12891-023-06657-7 |
| 29 | LI N， WANG R， TENG W， et al. Zero-profile versus cage-plate interbody fusion system in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis： A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis ［J］. Medicine （Baltimore）， 2020， 99（35）： e22026. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000022026 |
| 30 | HE S， ZHOU Z， LV N， et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer-ROI-C-Fixation and Combined Intervertebral Cage and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion： A Retrospective Study from a Single Center ［J］. Med Sci Monit， 2021， 27： e931050. doi:10.12659/msm.931050 |
| 31 | JIN Z Y， TENG Y， WANG H Z， et al. Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion： Zero Profile Anchored Spacer （ROI-C） vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct ［J］. Front Surg， 2021， 8： 736680. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2021.736680 |
| 32 | KHATTAB M F， KOTB A. Cervical stand-alone PEEK cage versus anchored cage with screws in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion： A prospective cohort study ［J］. Current Orthopaedic Practice， 2020， 31（2）： 179-185. doi:10.1097/bco.0000000000000853 |
| 33 | LAN T， LIN J Z， HU S Y， et al. Comparison between zero-profile spacer and plate with cage in the treatment of single level cervical spondylosis ［J］. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil， 2018， 31（2）： 299-304. doi:10.3233/bmr-169708 |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |