Cargando…

Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

BACKGROUND: We intended to analyze the efficacy of a new integrated cage and plate device called Perfect-C for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to cure single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. METHODS: We enrolled 148 patients who were subjected to single-level ACDF with one of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Noh, Sung Hyun, Zhang, Ho Yeol
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29368613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1950-9
_version_ 1783295491094609920
author Noh, Sung Hyun
Zhang, Ho Yeol
author_facet Noh, Sung Hyun
Zhang, Ho Yeol
author_sort Noh, Sung Hyun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We intended to analyze the efficacy of a new integrated cage and plate device called Perfect-C for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to cure single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. METHODS: We enrolled 148 patients who were subjected to single-level ACDF with one of the following three surgical devices: a Perfect-C implant (41 patients), a Zero-P implant (36 patients), or a titanium plate with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage (71 patients). We conducted a retrospective study to compare the clinical and radiological results among the three groups. RESULTS: The length of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the Perfect-C group than in the Zero-P and plate-with-cage groups (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up visit, heterotopic ossification (HO) was not observed in any cases (0%) in the Perfect-C and Zero-P groups but was noted in 21 cases (30%) in the plate-with-cage group. The cephalad and caudal plate-to-disc distance (PDD) and the cephalad and caudal PDD/anterior body height (ABH) were significantly greater in the Perfect-C and Zero-P groups than in the plate-with-cage group (P < 0.05). Subsidence occurred in five cases (14%) in the Perfect-C group, in nine cases (25%) in the Zero-P group, and in 15 cases (21%) in the plate-with-cage group. Fusion occurred in 37 cases (90%) in the Perfect-C group, in 31 cases (86%) in the Zero-P group, and in 68 cases (95%) in the plate-with-cage group. CONCLUSIONS: The Perfect-C, Zero-P, and plate-with-cage devices are effective for treating single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. However, the Perfect-C implant has many advantages over both the Zero-P implant and conventional plate-cage treatments. The Perfect-C implant was associated with shorter operation times and hospitalization durations, less blood loss, and lower subsidence rates compared with the Zero-P implant or the titanium plate with a PEEK cage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5784656
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57846562018-02-07 Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease Noh, Sung Hyun Zhang, Ho Yeol BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: We intended to analyze the efficacy of a new integrated cage and plate device called Perfect-C for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to cure single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. METHODS: We enrolled 148 patients who were subjected to single-level ACDF with one of the following three surgical devices: a Perfect-C implant (41 patients), a Zero-P implant (36 patients), or a titanium plate with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage (71 patients). We conducted a retrospective study to compare the clinical and radiological results among the three groups. RESULTS: The length of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the Perfect-C group than in the Zero-P and plate-with-cage groups (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up visit, heterotopic ossification (HO) was not observed in any cases (0%) in the Perfect-C and Zero-P groups but was noted in 21 cases (30%) in the plate-with-cage group. The cephalad and caudal plate-to-disc distance (PDD) and the cephalad and caudal PDD/anterior body height (ABH) were significantly greater in the Perfect-C and Zero-P groups than in the plate-with-cage group (P < 0.05). Subsidence occurred in five cases (14%) in the Perfect-C group, in nine cases (25%) in the Zero-P group, and in 15 cases (21%) in the plate-with-cage group. Fusion occurred in 37 cases (90%) in the Perfect-C group, in 31 cases (86%) in the Zero-P group, and in 68 cases (95%) in the plate-with-cage group. CONCLUSIONS: The Perfect-C, Zero-P, and plate-with-cage devices are effective for treating single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. However, the Perfect-C implant has many advantages over both the Zero-P implant and conventional plate-cage treatments. The Perfect-C implant was associated with shorter operation times and hospitalization durations, less blood loss, and lower subsidence rates compared with the Zero-P implant or the titanium plate with a PEEK cage. BioMed Central 2018-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5784656/ /pubmed/29368613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1950-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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
Noh, Sung Hyun
Zhang, Ho Yeol
Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease
title Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease
title_full Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease
title_fullStr Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease
title_full_unstemmed Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease
title_short Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease
title_sort comparison among perfect-c®, zero-p®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29368613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1950-9
work_keys_str_mv AT nohsunghyun comparisonamongperfectczeropandplateswithacageinsinglelevelcervicaldegenerativediscdisease
AT zhanghoyeol comparisonamongperfectczeropandplateswithacageinsinglelevelcervicaldegenerativediscdisease