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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |