Cheung Zoe B, Gidumal Sunder, White Samuel, Shin John, Phan Kevin, Osman Nebiyu, Bronheim Rachel, Vargas Luilly, Kim Jun S, Cho Samuel K
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Global Spine J. 2019 Jun;9(4):446-455. doi: 10.1177/2192568218774576. Epub 2018 May 17.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a stand-alone interbody cage versus a conventional cage and anterior cervical plate technique.
A systematic Medline search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews. Search terms included "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion," "cage," and "bone plates," or variations thereof. Only studies involving a direct comparison of ACDF with a stand-alone cage versus a cage and plate were included. From the selected studies, we extracted data on patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical risk factors, and pre- and postoperative radiographic findings. A meta-analysis was performed on all outcome measures. The quality of each study was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.
Nineteen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients who underwent ACDF with a cage-only technique had significantly lower rates of postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease compared with patients who underwent ACDF with a cage-plate technique. However, patients who underwent ACDF with a cage-plate technique had better radiographic outcomes with significantly less subsidence and better restoration of cervical lordosis. There were no other significant differences in outcomes or postoperative complications.
ACDF with a cage-only technique appears to have better clinical outcomes than the cage-plate technique, despite radiographic findings of increased rates of subsidence and less restoration of cervical lordosis. Future randomized controlled trials with longer term follow-up are needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.
系统评价与荟萃分析。
比较单纯椎间融合器与传统融合器及颈椎前路钢板技术在前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)中的临床和影像学结果。
使用PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane系统评价图书馆数据库对Medline进行系统检索。检索词包括“前路颈椎间盘切除融合术”、“融合器”和“骨板”及其变体。仅纳入涉及ACDF单纯融合器与融合器加钢板直接比较的研究。从选定的研究中,我们提取了患者人口统计学、合并症、手术风险因素以及术前和术后影像学检查结果的数据。对所有结局指标进行荟萃分析。使用Downs和Black清单评估每项研究的质量。
19项研究符合纳入和排除标准。与采用融合器加钢板技术进行ACDF的患者相比,采用单纯融合器技术进行ACDF的患者术后吞咽困难和相邻节段疾病的发生率显著更低。然而,采用融合器加钢板技术进行ACDF的患者影像学结果更好,下沉明显更少,颈椎前凸恢复更好。在结局或术后并发症方面没有其他显著差异。
尽管影像学结果显示下沉率增加且颈椎前凸恢复较少,但单纯融合器技术的ACDF似乎比融合器加钢板技术具有更好的临床结果。需要未来进行长期随访的随机对照试验来证实该荟萃分析的结果。