Shi Sheng, Zheng Shuang, Li Xin-Feng, Yang Li-Li, Liu Zu-De, Yuan Wen
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200127, P.R. China.
Department of Endocrinology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200127, P.R. China.
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 21;11(7):e0159761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159761. eCollection 2016.
OBJECTIVES: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with Discover prosthesis or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with Zero-P cage has been widely used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). However, little is known about the comparison of the 2 zero-profile implants in the treatment of single-level CSM. The aim was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters of CDA with Discover prosthesis and ACDF with Zero-P cage for the treatment of single-level CSM. METHODS: A total of 128 consecutive patients who underwent 1-level CDA with Discover prosthesis or ACDF with Zero-P cage for single-level CSM between September 2009 and December 2012 were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Neck Disability Index (NDI). For radiographic assessment, the overall sagittal alignment (OSA), functional spinal unit (FSU) angle, and range of motion (ROM) at the index and adjacent levels were measured before and after surgery. Additionally, the complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly improved all clinical parameters (P < 0.05), without statistically relevant differences between the 2 groups. The OSA and FSU angle increased significantly in both groups (P <0.05). Compared with Zero-P group, ROMs at the index levels were well maintained in the Discover group (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistical differences in the ROMs of adjacent levels between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). Besides, no significant differences existed in dysphagia, subsidence, or adjacent disc degeneration between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). However, significant differences occurred in prosthesis migration in CDA group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters were satisfactory and comparable with the 2 techniques. However, more attention to prosthesis migration of artificial cervical disc should be paid in the postoperative early-term follow-up.
目的:采用Discover假体进行颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)或使用Zero-P椎间融合器进行颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)已广泛应用于治疗脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)。然而,对于这两种零切迹植入物在治疗单节段CSM方面的比较了解甚少。本研究旨在比较采用Discover假体的CDA和使用Zero-P椎间融合器的ACDF治疗单节段CSM的临床疗效和影像学参数。 方法:本研究纳入了2009年9月至2012年12月期间连续接受采用Discover假体的单节段CDA或使用Zero-P椎间融合器的单节段ACDF治疗的128例患者。使用日本骨科协会(JOA)评分和颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)评估临床疗效。对于影像学评估,在手术前后测量整体矢状位对线(OSA)、功能脊柱单元(FSU)角度以及索引节段和相邻节段的活动度(ROM)。此外,还记录了并发症情况。 结果:两种治疗方法均显著改善了所有临床参数(P<0.05),两组之间无统计学显著差异。两组的OSA和FSU角度均显著增加(P<0.05)。与Zero-P组相比,Discover组索引节段的ROM得到了较好的维持(P<0.05)。然而,两组相邻节段的ROM无统计学差异(P>0.05)。此外,两组在吞咽困难、下沉或相邻椎间盘退变方面无显著差异(P>0.05)。然而,CDA组在假体移位方面存在显著差异。 结论:本研究结果表明,两种技术的临床疗效和影像学参数均令人满意且具有可比性。然而,在术后早期随访中应更加关注人工颈椎间盘的假体移位情况。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2017-5
JOR Spine. 2023-10-6
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016-4
World Neurosurg. 2015-8