Chen Zhipeng, Cen Shuizhong, Wu Jionglin, Guo Rui, Liu Zhenhua, Gao Liangbin
1Department of Orthopedics, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou; and.
2Department of Orthopedics, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2021 Jun 4;35(2):219-226. doi: 10.3171/2020.11.SPINE201319. Print 2021 Aug 1.
The aim of this study was to compare a traditional cervical cage with a zero-profile (ZP) fixation device in patients who underwent three-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in terms of patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS], Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA], and Neck Disability Index [NDI] scores), radiographic findings (sagittal alignment 2 years after surgery and likelihood of fusion), and complications.
This study was a retrospective case series. Between January 2012 and December 2016, 58 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) who required three-level ACDF procedures, as identified by spinal surgeons, were treated with three-level ACDF and an anterior cage-plate construct (ACPC) (n = 38) or a three-level stand-alone ZP device (n = 20). On the basis of patient choice, patients were divided into two groups (ACPC group and ZP group). All patients completed a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patient-reported outcome scores included VAS, JOA, and NDI scores. The radiographic findings included sagittal alignment and likelihood of fusion 2 years after surgery. Data related to patient-reported outcomes and sagittal alignment were collected preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were also documented and analyzed.
The clinical outcomes, including VAS, JOA, and NDI scores, showed improvement in both groups, and no significant difference was observed between the two groups. Sagittal alignment and height of the fused segments were restored in all patients. However, the authors found no differences between the ZP and ACPC groups, and the groups exhibited similar fusion rates. The authors found no differences in complications, including dysphagia, adjacent-segment degeneration, and postoperative hematoma, between the groups.
Use of ZP implants yielded satisfactory long-term clinical and radiological outcomes that were similar to those of the standard ACPC. Additionally, the rates of complications between the groups were not significantly different. Although the best surgical option for multilevel CSM remains controversial, the results of this work suggest that ACDF with the ZP device is feasible, safe, and effective, even for multilevel CSM.
本研究旨在比较传统颈椎椎间融合器与零切迹(ZP)固定装置在接受三级前路颈椎减压融合术(ACDF)患者中的疗效,比较指标包括患者报告的结局(视觉模拟评分法[VAS]、日本骨科协会[JOA]评分及颈部功能障碍指数[NDI]评分)、影像学结果(术后2年矢状面排列及融合可能性)和并发症情况。
本研究为回顾性病例系列研究。2012年1月至2016年12月期间,58例经脊柱外科医生诊断为需要进行三级ACDF手术的脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)患者接受了三级ACDF手术及前路椎间融合器钢板结构(ACPC)治疗(n = 38)或三级独立ZP装置治疗(n = 20)。根据患者选择,将患者分为两组(ACPC组和ZP组)。所有患者均完成了至少2年的随访。患者报告的结局评分包括VAS、JOA和NDI评分。影像学结果包括术后2年矢状面排列及融合可能性。收集术前、术后及末次随访时与患者报告结局和矢状面排列相关的数据。记录并分析术中及术后并发症。
包括VAS、JOA和NDI评分在内的临床结局在两组中均有改善,两组间未观察到显著差异。所有患者融合节段的矢状面排列和高度均得以恢复。然而,作者发现ZP组和ACPC组之间无差异,两组融合率相似。作者发现两组间在并发症方面无差异,包括吞咽困难、相邻节段退变和术后血肿。
使用ZP植入物产生了令人满意的长期临床和影像学结果,与标准ACPC相似。此外,两组间并发症发生率无显著差异。尽管多节段CSM的最佳手术选择仍存在争议,但本研究结果表明,即使对于多节段CSM,采用ZP装置进行ACDF也是可行、安全且有效的。