Cargando…

Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Between January 2016 and November 2018, a total of 68 pati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Jun, Wang, Shanxi, Tang, Xiangyu, Xiong, Wei, Wu, Hua, Liu, Chaoxu, Li, Feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9523971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36175990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w
_version_ 1784800405705719808
author Zhang, Jun
Wang, Shanxi
Tang, Xiangyu
Xiong, Wei
Wu, Hua
Liu, Chaoxu
Li, Feng
author_facet Zhang, Jun
Wang, Shanxi
Tang, Xiangyu
Xiong, Wei
Wu, Hua
Liu, Chaoxu
Li, Feng
author_sort Zhang, Jun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Between January 2016 and November 2018, a total of 68 patients with degenerative cervical spondylosis who underwent single-level ACDF were evaluated in this retrospective study. Thirty-five patients were treated with the zero-profile anchored cage (Zero-P group), and 33 patients were treated with the traditional cage-plate fixation (Cage group). The two groups were compared in reference to clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters. RESULTS: The mean operation time in the Zero-P group was significantly shorter than that in the Cage group. The incidence of postoperative dysphagia in the Cage group was higher than that in the Zero-P group at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. No bony spurs were found in the Zero-P group, whereas 5 patients in the Cage group developed bony spurs. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the JOA scores, VAS scores, NDI scores, C2-7 Cobb angles, segmental Cobb angles, total interbody height or fusion rates at 3 months or 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: In this study, both the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation were demonstrated to be effective and safe strategies. Given the lower incidence of dysphagia and degenerative changes, zero-profile anchored cage is a good option.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9523971
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95239712022-10-01 Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion Zhang, Jun Wang, Shanxi Tang, Xiangyu Xiong, Wei Wu, Hua Liu, Chaoxu Li, Feng Eur J Med Res Research BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Between January 2016 and November 2018, a total of 68 patients with degenerative cervical spondylosis who underwent single-level ACDF were evaluated in this retrospective study. Thirty-five patients were treated with the zero-profile anchored cage (Zero-P group), and 33 patients were treated with the traditional cage-plate fixation (Cage group). The two groups were compared in reference to clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters. RESULTS: The mean operation time in the Zero-P group was significantly shorter than that in the Cage group. The incidence of postoperative dysphagia in the Cage group was higher than that in the Zero-P group at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. No bony spurs were found in the Zero-P group, whereas 5 patients in the Cage group developed bony spurs. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the JOA scores, VAS scores, NDI scores, C2-7 Cobb angles, segmental Cobb angles, total interbody height or fusion rates at 3 months or 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: In this study, both the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation were demonstrated to be effective and safe strategies. Given the lower incidence of dysphagia and degenerative changes, zero-profile anchored cage is a good option. BioMed Central 2022-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9523971/ /pubmed/36175990 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zhang, Jun
Wang, Shanxi
Tang, Xiangyu
Xiong, Wei
Wu, Hua
Liu, Chaoxu
Li, Feng
Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
title Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
title_full Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
title_fullStr Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
title_full_unstemmed Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
title_short Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
title_sort clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9523971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36175990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangjun clinicalandradiologicalcomparisonofthezeroprofileanchoredcageandtraditionalcageplatefixationinsinglelevelanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion
AT wangshanxi clinicalandradiologicalcomparisonofthezeroprofileanchoredcageandtraditionalcageplatefixationinsinglelevelanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion
AT tangxiangyu clinicalandradiologicalcomparisonofthezeroprofileanchoredcageandtraditionalcageplatefixationinsinglelevelanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion
AT xiongwei clinicalandradiologicalcomparisonofthezeroprofileanchoredcageandtraditionalcageplatefixationinsinglelevelanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion
AT wuhua clinicalandradiologicalcomparisonofthezeroprofileanchoredcageandtraditionalcageplatefixationinsinglelevelanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion
AT liuchaoxu clinicalandradiologicalcomparisonofthezeroprofileanchoredcageandtraditionalcageplatefixationinsinglelevelanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion
AT lifeng clinicalandradiologicalcomparisonofthezeroprofileanchoredcageandtraditionalcageplatefixationinsinglelevelanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion