Cargando…

Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up

Comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) or a conventional cage-plate construct (CPC) for treating noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Overall, 46 patients with 2 no...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Yingjie, Bao, Weiguo, Wang, Zongyi, Zhou, Feng, Zou, Jun, Jiang, Weimin, Yang, Huilin, Zhang, Zhiming, Zhu, Xuesong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29384883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009808
_version_ 1783298979502489600
author Lu, Yingjie
Bao, Weiguo
Wang, Zongyi
Zhou, Feng
Zou, Jun
Jiang, Weimin
Yang, Huilin
Zhang, Zhiming
Zhu, Xuesong
author_facet Lu, Yingjie
Bao, Weiguo
Wang, Zongyi
Zhou, Feng
Zou, Jun
Jiang, Weimin
Yang, Huilin
Zhang, Zhiming
Zhu, Xuesong
author_sort Lu, Yingjie
collection PubMed
description Comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) or a conventional cage-plate construct (CPC) for treating noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Overall, 46 patients with 2 noncontiguous segments of CDDD, treated with ACDF from January 2011 to October 2015, were included in this study. ROI-C was used in 22 patients (group A) and CPC in 24 patients (group B). The clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared pre- and postoperatively. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months after surgery. No significant difference was found in fusion rate, cervical curvature, height of fused segment (FSDH), intraoperative blood loss, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores between the 2 groups. Group A had a shorter operation time and significantly lower incidence of dysphagia (3 and 24 months postoperatively) than group B (P < .001 and P < .05, respectively). Moreover, group A had a higher loss of FSDH than group B, but with no difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). Two cages developed subsidence in group A (4.5%) and 2 adjacent levels developed degeneration in group B (2,8%). ACDF with ROI-C device was superior to CPC for noncontiguous bilevel of CDDD because it avoided postoperative dysphagia and required a shorter operation time. Moreover, the clinical outcomes were comparable. Prospective trials with larger samples and longer follow-up are required to confirm the results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5805455
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58054552018-02-20 Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up Lu, Yingjie Bao, Weiguo Wang, Zongyi Zhou, Feng Zou, Jun Jiang, Weimin Yang, Huilin Zhang, Zhiming Zhu, Xuesong Medicine (Baltimore) 3700 Comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) or a conventional cage-plate construct (CPC) for treating noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). Overall, 46 patients with 2 noncontiguous segments of CDDD, treated with ACDF from January 2011 to October 2015, were included in this study. ROI-C was used in 22 patients (group A) and CPC in 24 patients (group B). The clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared pre- and postoperatively. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months after surgery. No significant difference was found in fusion rate, cervical curvature, height of fused segment (FSDH), intraoperative blood loss, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores between the 2 groups. Group A had a shorter operation time and significantly lower incidence of dysphagia (3 and 24 months postoperatively) than group B (P < .001 and P < .05, respectively). Moreover, group A had a higher loss of FSDH than group B, but with no difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). Two cages developed subsidence in group A (4.5%) and 2 adjacent levels developed degeneration in group B (2,8%). ACDF with ROI-C device was superior to CPC for noncontiguous bilevel of CDDD because it avoided postoperative dysphagia and required a shorter operation time. Moreover, the clinical outcomes were comparable. Prospective trials with larger samples and longer follow-up are required to confirm the results. Wolters Kluwer Health 2018-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5805455/ /pubmed/29384883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009808 Text en Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
spellingShingle 3700
Lu, Yingjie
Bao, Weiguo
Wang, Zongyi
Zhou, Feng
Zou, Jun
Jiang, Weimin
Yang, Huilin
Zhang, Zhiming
Zhu, Xuesong
Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up
title Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up
title_full Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up
title_fullStr Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up
title_short Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up
title_sort comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (roi-c) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (cddd): a minimum 2-year follow-up
topic 3700
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29384883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009808
work_keys_str_mv AT luyingjie comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT baoweiguo comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT wangzongyi comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT zhoufeng comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT zoujun comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT jiangweimin comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT yanghuilin comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT zhangzhiming comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup
AT zhuxuesong comparisonoftheclinicaleffectsofzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicandconventionalcageplateconstructforthetreatmentofnoncontiguousbilevelofcervicaldegenerativediscdiseasecdddaminimum2yearfollowup