Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou, 215000, China.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Suzhou Dushuhu Public Hospital (Dushuhu Public Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University), Suzhou, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 May 24;15(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01711-9.
The zero-profile anchored cage (ZP) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate.
We performed a meta-analysis of studies that compared the subsidence rates of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematic search covered the PubMed and Embase databases according to the PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analyzed by the RevMan 5.3 software.
Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in the ZP group was significantly higher than that in the CP group [15.1% (89/588) versus 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In the subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than that of the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multilevel (≥ 2-level) procedures. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate, or cervical alignment in the final follow-up between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia than the ZP group at each follow-up time.
Based on the limited evidence, we suggest that ZP has a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP, although with elevated swallowing discomfort. A high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trial is required to validate our results in the future.
零切迹锚定 cage(ZP)因其较低的吞咽困难发生率而被广泛应用。然而,其稳定性是否与 cage-plate 结构(CP)相同,以及是否会增加术后下沉的发生率仍存在争议。我们比较了 ZP 和 CP 在前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)后的下沉率,以确定零切迹装置是否具有更高的下沉率。
我们按照 PRISMA 指南对比较 ZP 和 CP 下沉率的研究进行了荟萃分析。根据系统搜索,涵盖了 PubMed 和 Embase 数据库,共确定了 10 篇符合纳入标准的文章。使用 RevMan 5.3 软件提取并分析了相关的临床和影像学数据。
10 项试验共纳入 626 例患者,纳入本荟萃分析。ZP 组术后下沉的发生率明显高于 CP 组[15.1%(89/588)比 8.8%(51/581),OR=1.97(1.34,2.89),P=0.0005]。在亚组分析中,我们发现下沉的定义并不影响 ZP 组较高的下沉率。考虑手术节段的数量,在单节段融合后,两组的下沉发生率无显著差异[OR=1.43(95%CI 0.61-3.37,P=0.41)]。然而,多节段(≥2 节段)手术中,ZP 组的下沉率明显高于 CP 组[OR=2.61(95%CI 1.55-4.40,P=0.0003]。两组最终随访时术中出血量、JOA 评分、NDI 评分、融合率和颈椎对线均无显著差异。此外,CP 组在每次随访时的手术时间都比 ZP 组长,且吞咽困难的发生率更高。
基于有限的证据,我们建议 ZP 的术后下沉风险高于 CP,尽管吞咽不适的发生率有所升高。未来需要一项高质量、多中心的随机对照试验来验证我们的结果。