Cargando…
Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is the golden standard for anterior surgery treating elderly cervical degenerative disease, but the previous implant has some problems such as looseness, translocation, sinking and dysphagia, So Zero-p implant and PCB implant have been developed to...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26459625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0746-4 |
_version_ | 1782394952545730560 |
---|---|
author | Wang, ZhiDong Zhu, RuoFu Yang, HuiLin Shen, MinJie Wang, Genlin Chen, Kangwu Gan, Minfeng Li, Mao |
author_facet | Wang, ZhiDong Zhu, RuoFu Yang, HuiLin Shen, MinJie Wang, Genlin Chen, Kangwu Gan, Minfeng Li, Mao |
author_sort | Wang, ZhiDong |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is the golden standard for anterior surgery treating elderly cervical degenerative disease, but the previous implant has some problems such as looseness, translocation, sinking and dysphagia, So Zero-p implant and PCB implant have been developed to decrease the complications. METHODS: The clinical data of 57 patients with single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy were retrospectively analyzed. 27 patients adopting Zero-p interbody fusion cage as implant (Zero-p group) and 30 patients adopting integrated plate cage benezech (PCB) as implant (PCB group) from January 2010 to October 2012. Observe whether are differences between the two groups of patients on operation time, intraoperatve blood loss,Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores before and after operation, intervertebral height, cervical physiological curvature, fusion rate, Postoperative dysphagia rate and complications. RESULTS: Zero-p group’s operation time is 98.2 + 15.2 min and its intraoperatve blood loss is 88.2 + 12.9 ml, both of which are lower than those of PCB group (109.8 + 16.9 min,95.2 + 11.6 ml ), so their differences are statistically significant (P < 0.05). The two groups’ JOA scores 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up are significantly higher than those before operation, so the differences are statistically significant (P < 0.05). Coob angle 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up improves obviously compared with before operation, so the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05). The two groups’ operation segments intervertebral height 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up improves obviously compared with before operation, so the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05) Zero-p group has one patient with dysphagia after operation and PCB group has four patients with dysphagia after operation, so there is no statistical differences between the two groups on dysphagia rate (P > 0.05, P = 0.415). PCB group has two patients with screws backing out and two patients with hoarseness after operation, the two groups’ operation segments all saw bony union in the last follow-up. Zero-p group postoperative complications are lower than PCB group (P < 0.05, P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Zero-profile implant and PCB implant both achieved good clinical effects on the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, the two groups both saw bony union in operation segments, but Zero-profile implant has the advantages of easy operation, short operation time, less intraoperatve blood loss and less complications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4603765 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46037652015-10-14 Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy Wang, ZhiDong Zhu, RuoFu Yang, HuiLin Shen, MinJie Wang, Genlin Chen, Kangwu Gan, Minfeng Li, Mao BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is the golden standard for anterior surgery treating elderly cervical degenerative disease, but the previous implant has some problems such as looseness, translocation, sinking and dysphagia, So Zero-p implant and PCB implant have been developed to decrease the complications. METHODS: The clinical data of 57 patients with single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy were retrospectively analyzed. 27 patients adopting Zero-p interbody fusion cage as implant (Zero-p group) and 30 patients adopting integrated plate cage benezech (PCB) as implant (PCB group) from January 2010 to October 2012. Observe whether are differences between the two groups of patients on operation time, intraoperatve blood loss,Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores before and after operation, intervertebral height, cervical physiological curvature, fusion rate, Postoperative dysphagia rate and complications. RESULTS: Zero-p group’s operation time is 98.2 + 15.2 min and its intraoperatve blood loss is 88.2 + 12.9 ml, both of which are lower than those of PCB group (109.8 + 16.9 min,95.2 + 11.6 ml ), so their differences are statistically significant (P < 0.05). The two groups’ JOA scores 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up are significantly higher than those before operation, so the differences are statistically significant (P < 0.05). Coob angle 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up improves obviously compared with before operation, so the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05). The two groups’ operation segments intervertebral height 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up improves obviously compared with before operation, so the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05) Zero-p group has one patient with dysphagia after operation and PCB group has four patients with dysphagia after operation, so there is no statistical differences between the two groups on dysphagia rate (P > 0.05, P = 0.415). PCB group has two patients with screws backing out and two patients with hoarseness after operation, the two groups’ operation segments all saw bony union in the last follow-up. Zero-p group postoperative complications are lower than PCB group (P < 0.05, P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Zero-profile implant and PCB implant both achieved good clinical effects on the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, the two groups both saw bony union in operation segments, but Zero-profile implant has the advantages of easy operation, short operation time, less intraoperatve blood loss and less complications. BioMed Central 2015-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4603765/ /pubmed/26459625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0746-4 Text en © Wang et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wang, ZhiDong Zhu, RuoFu Yang, HuiLin Shen, MinJie Wang, Genlin Chen, Kangwu Gan, Minfeng Li, Mao Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
title | Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
title_full | Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
title_fullStr | Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
title_full_unstemmed | Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
title_short | Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
title_sort | zero-profile implant (zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (pcb) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26459625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0746-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangzhidong zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT zhuruofu zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT yanghuilin zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT shenminjie zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT wanggenlin zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT chenkangwu zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT ganminfeng zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy AT limao zeroprofileimplantzeropversusplatecagebenezechimplantpcbinthetreatmentofsinglelevelcervicalspondyloticmyelopathy |