Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely performed to treat cervical generative diseases. Cage subsidence is a complication after ACDF. Although it is known that segmental kyphosis, acceleration of adjacent segmental disease, and restenosis may occur due to cages su...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jin, Zhe-yu, Teng, Yun, Wang, Hua-zheng, Yang, Hui-lin, Lu, Ying-jie, Gan, Min-feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8579909/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34778358
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.736680
_version_ 1784596517135319040
author Jin, Zhe-yu
Teng, Yun
Wang, Hua-zheng
Yang, Hui-lin
Lu, Ying-jie
Gan, Min-feng
author_facet Jin, Zhe-yu
Teng, Yun
Wang, Hua-zheng
Yang, Hui-lin
Lu, Ying-jie
Gan, Min-feng
author_sort Jin, Zhe-yu
collection PubMed
description Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely performed to treat cervical generative diseases. Cage subsidence is a complication after ACDF. Although it is known that segmental kyphosis, acceleration of adjacent segmental disease, and restenosis may occur due to cages subsidence; however detailed research comparing zero-profile cages (ROI-C) and conventional plate and cage construct (CPC) on cage subsidence has been lacking. Objective: The objectives of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative cage subsidence between zero profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage and plate construct (CPC) and investigate the risk factors associated with cage subsidence following ACDF. Methods: Seventy-four patients with ACDF who received either ROI-C or CPC treatment from October 2013 to August 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical and radiological outcomes and the incidence of cage subsidence at final follow up-were compared between groups. All patients were further categorized into the cage subsidence (CS) and non-cage subsidence (NCS) groups for subgroup analysis. Results: The overall subsidence rate was higher in the ROI-C group than in the CPC group (66.67 vs. 38.46%, P = 0.006). The incidence of cage subsidence was significantly different between groups for multiple-segment surgeries (75 vs. 34.6%, P = 0.003), but not for single-segment surgeries (54.55 vs. 42.30%, P = 0.563). Male sex, operation in multiple segments, using an ROI-C, and over-distraction increased the risk of subsidence. Clinical outcomes and fusion rates were not affected by cage subsidence. Conclusion: ROI-C use resulted in a higher subsidence rate than CPC use in multi-segment ACDF procedures. The male sex, the use of ROI-C, operation in multiple segments, and over-distraction were the most significant factors associated with an increase in the risk of cage subsidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8579909
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85799092021-11-11 Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct Jin, Zhe-yu Teng, Yun Wang, Hua-zheng Yang, Hui-lin Lu, Ying-jie Gan, Min-feng Front Surg Surgery Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely performed to treat cervical generative diseases. Cage subsidence is a complication after ACDF. Although it is known that segmental kyphosis, acceleration of adjacent segmental disease, and restenosis may occur due to cages subsidence; however detailed research comparing zero-profile cages (ROI-C) and conventional plate and cage construct (CPC) on cage subsidence has been lacking. Objective: The objectives of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative cage subsidence between zero profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage and plate construct (CPC) and investigate the risk factors associated with cage subsidence following ACDF. Methods: Seventy-four patients with ACDF who received either ROI-C or CPC treatment from October 2013 to August 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical and radiological outcomes and the incidence of cage subsidence at final follow up-were compared between groups. All patients were further categorized into the cage subsidence (CS) and non-cage subsidence (NCS) groups for subgroup analysis. Results: The overall subsidence rate was higher in the ROI-C group than in the CPC group (66.67 vs. 38.46%, P = 0.006). The incidence of cage subsidence was significantly different between groups for multiple-segment surgeries (75 vs. 34.6%, P = 0.003), but not for single-segment surgeries (54.55 vs. 42.30%, P = 0.563). Male sex, operation in multiple segments, using an ROI-C, and over-distraction increased the risk of subsidence. Clinical outcomes and fusion rates were not affected by cage subsidence. Conclusion: ROI-C use resulted in a higher subsidence rate than CPC use in multi-segment ACDF procedures. The male sex, the use of ROI-C, operation in multiple segments, and over-distraction were the most significant factors associated with an increase in the risk of cage subsidence. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8579909/ /pubmed/34778358 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.736680 Text en Copyright © 2021 Jin, Teng, Wang, Yang, Lu and Gan. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Jin, Zhe-yu
Teng, Yun
Wang, Hua-zheng
Yang, Hui-lin
Lu, Ying-jie
Gan, Min-feng
Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct
title Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct
title_full Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct
title_short Comparative Analysis of Cage Subsidence in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: Zero Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) vs. Conventional Cage and Plate Construct
title_sort comparative analysis of cage subsidence in anterior cervical decompression and fusion: zero profile anchored spacer (roi-c) vs. conventional cage and plate construct
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8579909/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34778358
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.736680
work_keys_str_mv AT jinzheyu comparativeanalysisofcagesubsidenceinanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusionzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicvsconventionalcageandplateconstruct
AT tengyun comparativeanalysisofcagesubsidenceinanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusionzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicvsconventionalcageandplateconstruct
AT wanghuazheng comparativeanalysisofcagesubsidenceinanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusionzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicvsconventionalcageandplateconstruct
AT yanghuilin comparativeanalysisofcagesubsidenceinanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusionzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicvsconventionalcageandplateconstruct
AT luyingjie comparativeanalysisofcagesubsidenceinanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusionzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicvsconventionalcageandplateconstruct
AT ganminfeng comparativeanalysisofcagesubsidenceinanteriorcervicaldecompressionandfusionzeroprofileanchoredspacerroicvsconventionalcageandplateconstruct