Ji Gyu Yeul, Oh Chang Hyun, Shin Dong Ah, Ha Yoon, Kim Keung Nyun, Yoon Do Heum, Yudoyono Farid
*Department of Neurosurgery †Spine and Joint Research Institute, Guro Teun Teun Hospital ‡Department of Neurosurgery §Spine and Spinal Cord Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea ∥College of Medicine, Padjadjaran University, Hasan Sadikin Hospital, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Aug;28(7):E433-8. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a355ad.
A retrospective study.
To analyze adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in 2-level anterior cervical discectomy, comparing fusion with stand-alone cages [anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)-CA] and fusion with cage and plate constructs (ACDF-CPC) with respect to clinical outcomes and radiologic changes.
ACDF using a stand-alone cage or a cage and plate construct is a popular procedure. However, there is lack of knowledge concerning ASD between the 2 procedures.
A total of 42 consecutive patients who underwent 2-level ACDF-CA or ACDF-CPC for 2-level cervical disk disease and who completed 2 years of follow-up were included in this study. The patients were divided into 2 groups: ACDF-CA group (n=22) and ACDF-CPC group (n=20). The following parameters were assessed using radiographs: disk space narrowing, anterior osteophyte formation, calcification of the anterior longitudinal ligament, and fusion status. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Robinson criteria.
No difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the 2 groups. Moreover, the ACDF-CPC group showed a similar fusion rate compared with the ACDF-CA group (100% vs. 95%, P=0.335). There was also no statistical significance in anterior osteophyte formation and calcification of the anterior longitudinal ligament. However, mean intervertebral disk height change of an adjacent segment was significantly lower in the ACDF-CA group than the ACDF-CPC group (upper level: 0.08±0.24 vs. 0.49±0.35; lower level: 0.06±0.41 vs. 0.49±0.28; P<0.01).
The use of a cage with or without plate constructs in 2-level ACDF provides similar clinical results and fusion rates. Notwithstanding, ACDF-CPC showed a higher incidence of ASD than ACDF-CA over the 2-year follow-up.
一项回顾性研究。
分析两节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除术后的相邻节段退变(ASD)情况,比较单纯椎间融合器融合术[颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)-CA]与椎间融合器联合钢板融合术(ACDF-CPC)在临床疗效和影像学改变方面的差异。
使用单纯椎间融合器或椎间融合器联合钢板进行ACDF是一种常用手术。然而,对于这两种手术方式之间的ASD情况,人们了解不足。
本研究纳入了42例连续接受两节段ACDF-CA或ACDF-CPC治疗两节段颈椎间盘疾病且完成2年随访的患者。患者分为两组:ACDF-CA组(n=22)和ACDF-CPC组(n=20)。使用X线片评估以下参数:椎间隙狭窄、椎体前缘骨赘形成、前纵韧带钙化和融合情况。使用罗宾逊标准评估临床疗效。
两组临床疗效无差异。此外,ACDF-CPC组与ACDF-CA组的融合率相似(100%对95%,P=0.335)。椎体前缘骨赘形成和前纵韧带钙化也无统计学意义。然而,ACDF-CA组相邻节段的平均椎间盘高度变化显著低于ACDF-CPC组(上位节段:0.08±0.24对0.49±0.35;下位节段:0.06±0.41对0.49±0.28;P<0.01)。
在两节段ACDF中使用带或不带钢板的椎间融合器可提供相似的临床结果和融合率。尽管如此,在2年的随访中,ACDF-CPC的ASD发生率高于ACDF-CA。