• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

零切迹与 cage 板装置治疗单节段颈椎病的比较。

Comparison between zero-profile and cage plate devices in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylopathy.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, PR China.

Key Laboratory of Bone and Joint Disease Research of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, PR China.

出版信息

Br J Neurosurg. 2024 Jun;38(3):562-567. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2021.1923654. Epub 2021 Jun 29.

DOI:10.1080/02688697.2021.1923654
PMID:34184600
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the new zero-profile (Zero-P) fusion cage with regular cage and plate (CP) in the treatment of anterior cervical single-level cervical degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Patients operated from January 2013 to August 2018 were enrolled. They were divided into the Zero-P group ( = 74 cases) and CP groups ( = 116 cases). Follow-up assessment was at 1, 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery, including the incidence of dysphagia, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA)score, C2-C7 Cobb angle, intervertebral disc height (IDH) and adjacent joint degeneration.

RESULTS

The operation time and blood loss of patients in Zero-P group were less than those in the CP group, and there was no difference in hospitalization time. All 190 patients were followed up for 24 to 72 months, with an average of 35.29 months. In terms of clinical outcomes, vas and JOA scores of the two groups were significantly improved at one month and the last follow-up. The incidence of dysphagia in the Zero-P group was lower than that in the CP group. On radiological effects, Cobb angle and IDH showed significant correction in both groups, but the degeneration rate of adjacent joints in the Zero-P group was lower than the CP group.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACDF, the clinical and radiological results of Zero-P and CP devices are satisfactory, but Zero-P cage may be superior in operation time, blood loss, the incidence of dysphagia and adjacent joint degeneration.

摘要

目的

比较新型零切迹(Zero-P)融合 cage 与常规 cage 和板(CP)治疗单节段颈前路颈椎退行性疾病的效果。

方法

纳入 2013 年 1 月至 2018 年 8 月间接受手术的患者。根据治疗方式分为 Zero-P 组(n=74)和 CP 组(n=116)。术后 1、3、12 和 24 个月进行随访评估,包括吞咽困难发生率、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、日本矫形协会(JOA)评分、C2-C7 Cobb 角、椎间盘高度(IDH)和邻近关节退变情况。

结果

Zero-P 组的手术时间和出血量均少于 CP 组,而住院时间无差异。190 例患者均获得 24 至 72 个月(平均 35.29 个月)随访。在临床结果方面,两组的 VAS 和 JOA 评分均在术后 1 个月和末次随访时显著改善。Zero-P 组的吞咽困难发生率低于 CP 组。在影像学效果方面,两组 Cobb 角和 IDH 均有显著矫正,但 Zero-P 组邻近关节退变发生率低于 CP 组。

结论

在 ACDF 中,Zero-P 和 CP 装置的临床和影像学结果均令人满意,但 Zero-P cage 在手术时间、出血量、吞咽困难发生率和邻近关节退变方面可能更具优势。

相似文献

1
Comparison between zero-profile and cage plate devices in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylopathy.零切迹与 cage 板装置治疗单节段颈椎病的比较。
Br J Neurosurg. 2024 Jun;38(3):562-567. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2021.1923654. Epub 2021 Jun 29.
2
Comparison of a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with an anterior plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.零轮廓锚定椎间融合器(ROI-C)与聚醚醚酮(PEEK)椎间融合器联合前路钢板用于多节段脊髓型颈椎病前路椎间盘切除融合术的比较。
Eur Spine J. 2016 Jun;25(6):1881-90. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4500-x. Epub 2016 Mar 11.
3
[Efficacy comparison of zero-profile intervertebral fusion and stand-alone interbody cage combined with cage-titanium plate construct in treatment of two-segment skip cervical spondylosis].零切迹椎间融合与单纯椎间融合器联合钛板治疗双节段跳跃型颈椎病的疗效比较
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2022 May 24;102(19):1450-1457. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20220128-00208.
4
Comparison between zero-profile spacer and plate with cage in the treatment of single level cervical spondylosis.零切迹椎间融合器与带椎间融合器的钢板治疗单节段颈椎病的比较。
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2018;31(2):299-304. doi: 10.3233/BMR-169708.
5
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a zero-profile VA spacer device: a clinical and radiological study with two-year follow-up.颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术联合零切迹 VA spacer 装置:一项具有两年随访的临床和放射学研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jan 11;19(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04539-9.
6
[Effect of zero-profile and self-locking intervertebral cage and plate-cage construct on maintenance of cervical curvature after anterior cervical surgery].[零切迹自锁椎间融合器与钢板-融合器组合在前路颈椎手术后维持颈椎曲度中的作用]
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Feb 15;34(2):151-156. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201904097.
7
A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up.使用自锁独立聚醚醚酮(PEEK)椎间融合器的颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)与使用椎间融合器和钢板的ACDF治疗三级颈椎退行性脊椎病的比较:一项为期2年随访的回顾性研究
Eur Spine J. 2016 Jul;25(7):2255-62. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4391-x. Epub 2016 Feb 23.
8
Zero-profile implant system versus novel plate systems after ACDF for comparison of sagittal balance parameters and clinical efficacy analysis.零切迹植入系统与新型钢板系统在颈椎前路融合术后的比较:矢状位平衡参数和临床疗效分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jun 19;19(1):363. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04857-y.
9
Zero-profile integrated plate and spacer device reduces rate of adjacent-level ossification development and dysphagia compared to ACDF with plating and cage system.与采用钢板和椎间融合器系统的前路颈椎间盘切除融合术相比,零轮廓一体化钢板及椎间融合器装置降低了相邻节段骨化的发生率及吞咽困难的发生率。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):781-7. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2212-z. Epub 2015 Apr 8.
10
Comparative efficacy of zero-profile implant and conventional cage-plate implant in the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.零切迹植入物与传统 cage-plate 植入物治疗单节段退行性颈椎病的疗效比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jun 19;19(1):364. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04729-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Short-term clinical outcomes and technical advantages of mini-open endoscope assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.微型开放内镜辅助下颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗脊髓型颈椎病的短期临床疗效及技术优势
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025 Apr 16;26(1):371. doi: 10.1186/s12891-025-08606-y.
2
Zero-Profile Stand-Alone Cages Versus Traditional Cage-and-Plate Constructs in Single and Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Propensity-Matched Analysis Using Validated Fusion Assessment Methods.单节段和多节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术中零轮廓独立椎间融合器与传统椎间融合器加钢板固定装置的比较:一项使用经验证的融合评估方法的倾向匹配分析
Global Spine J. 2025 Apr 14:21925682251329228. doi: 10.1177/21925682251329228.
3
Comparative efficacy of zero-profile implant and conventional cage-plate implant in the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.零切迹植入物与传统 cage-plate 植入物治疗单节段退行性颈椎病的疗效比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jun 19;19(1):364. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04729-5.
4
Zero-profile anchored spacer versus conventional plate-cage construct in bilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.零切迹锁定型椎间融合器与传统钢板-笼式融合器在双节段颈椎前路椎体间融合术中的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Aug 31;18(1):644. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04134-4.
5
Self-locking stand-alone cage versus cage-plate fixation in monosegmental anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a minimum 2-year follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis.自锁式独立 cage 与 cage-plate 固定在单节段前路颈椎间盘切除融合术中的比较:一项至少 2 年随访的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Jun 2;18(1):403. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-03885-4.
6
Changes in cervical alignment of Zero-profile device versus conventional cage-plate construct after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis.零切迹装置与传统笼板结构在前路颈椎间盘切除融合术后颈椎曲度变化的Meta 分析
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Nov 24;17(1):510. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03400-1.