Wang Zhiqiang, Feng Haoyu, Ma Xun, Chen Chen, Deng Chen, Sun Lin
Department of Orthopedics, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University (Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital), Taiyuan Shanxi, 030032, P.R.China.
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2021 Sep 15;35(9):1147-1154. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202103003.
To evaluate the effectiveness of three-dimensional (3D) printing artificial vertebral body and interbody fusion Cage in anterior cervical disectomy and fusion (ACCF) combined with anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACDF).
The clinical data of 29 patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy who underwent ACCF combined with ACDF between May 2018 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 13 patients were treated with 3D printing artificial vertebral body and 3D printing Cage as 3D printing group and 16 patients with ordinary titanium mesh Cage (TMC) and Cage as TMC group. There was no significant difference in gender, age, surgical segment, Nurick grade, disease duration, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Cobb angle of fusion segment between the two groups ( >0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization stay, complications, and implant fusion at last follow-up were recorded and compared between the two groups; JOA score was used to evaluate neurological function before operation, immediately after operation, at 6 months after operation, and at last follow-up; VAS score was used to evaluate upper limb and neck pain. Cobb angle of fusion segment was measured and the difference between the last follow-up and the immediate after operation was calculated. The height of the anterior border (HAB) and the height of the posterior border (HPB) were measured immediately after operation, at 6 months after operation, and at last follow-up, and the subsidence of implant was calculated.
The operation time of 3D printing group was significantly less than that of TMC group ( =3.336, =0.002); there was no significant difference in hospitalization stay and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups ( >0.05). All patients were followed up 12-19 months (mean, 16 months). There was no obvious complication in both groups. There were significant differences in JOA score, VAS score, and Cobb angle at each time point between the two groups ( <0.05). There was an interaction between time and group in the JOA score ( =3.705, =0.025). With time, the increase in JOA score was different between the 3D printing group and the TMC group, and the increase in the 3D printing group was greater. There was no interaction between time and group in the VAS score ( =3.038, =0.065), and there was no significant difference in the score at each time point between the two groups ( =0.173, =0.681). The time of the Cobb angle interacted with the group ( =15.581, =0.000). With time, the Cobb angle of the 3D printing group and the TMC group changed differently. Among them, the 3D printing group increased more and the TMC group decreased more. At last follow-up, there was no significant difference in the improvement rate of JOA score between the two groups ( =0.681, =0.502), but the Cobb angle difference of the 3D printing group was significantly smaller than that of the TMC group ( =5.754, =0.000). At last follow-up, the implant fusion rate of the 3D printing group and TMC group were 92.3% (12/13) and 87.5% (14/16), respectively, and the difference was not significant ( =1.000). The incidence of implant settlement in the 3D printing group and TMC group at 6 months after operation was 15.4% (2/13) and 18.8% (3/16), respectively, and at last follow-up were 30.8% (4/13) and 56.3% (9/16), respectively, the differences were not significant ( =1.000; =0.264). The difference of HAB and the difference of HPB in the 3D printing group at 6 months after operation and last follow-up were significantly lower than those in the TMC group ( <0.05).
For patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing ACCF combined with ACDF, compared with TMC and Cage, 3D printing artificial vertebrae body and 3D printing Cage have the advantages of shorter operation time, better reduction of height loss of fusion vertebral body, and maintenance of cervical physiological curvature, the early effectiveness is better.
评估三维(3D)打印人工椎体及椎间融合器在前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(ACCF)联合前路颈椎椎体次全切除融合术(ACDF)中的有效性。
回顾性分析2018年5月至2019年12月期间接受ACCF联合ACDF治疗的29例多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的临床资料。其中,13例患者采用3D打印人工椎体及3D打印融合器作为3D打印组,16例患者采用普通钛网融合器(TMC)作为TMC组。两组患者在性别、年龄、手术节段、Nurick分级、病程、术前日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、视觉模拟评分(VAS)及融合节段Cobb角方面比较,差异均无统计学意义(>0.05)。记录并比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、并发症及末次随访时的植入物融合情况;采用JOA评分评估术前、术后即刻、术后6个月及末次随访时的神经功能;采用VAS评分评估上肢及颈部疼痛情况。测量融合节段Cobb角,并计算末次随访与术后即刻的差值。测量术后即刻、术后6个月及末次随访时的椎体前缘高度(HAB)及椎体后缘高度(HPB),并计算植入物沉降情况。
3D打印组手术时间显著短于TMC组(=3.336,=0.002);两组患者住院时间及术中出血量比较,差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。所有患者均获随访12 - 19个月(平均16个月)。两组均未出现明显并发症。两组各时间点JOA评分、VAS评分及Cobb角比较,差异均有统计学意义(<0.05)。JOA评分在时间与组间存在交互作用(=3.705,=0.025)。随着时间推移,3D打印组与TMC组JOA评分的升高幅度不同,3D打印组升高幅度更大。VAS评分在时间与组间不存在交互作用(=3.038,=0.065),两组各时间点评分比较,差异无统计学意义(=0.173,=0.681)。Cobb角在时间与组间存在交互作用(=15.581,=0.000)。随着时间推移,3D打印组与TMC组Cobb角变化不同。其中,3D打印组增大更多,TMC组减小更多。末次随访时,两组JOA评分改善率比较,差异无统计学意义(=0.681,=0.502),但3D打印组Cobb角差值显著小于TMC组(=5.754,=0.000)。末次随访时,3D打印组与TMC组植入物融合率分别为92.3%(12/13)和87.5%(14/16),差异无统计学意义(=1.000)。术后6个月及末次随访时,3D打印组与TMC组植入物沉降发生率分别为15.4%(2/13)和18.8%(3/16),以及30.8%(4/13)和56.3%(9/16),差异均无统计学意义(=1.000;=0.264)。术后6个月及末次随访时,3D打印组HAB差值及HPB差值均显著低于TMC组(<0.05)。
对于接受ACCF联合ACDF治疗的多节段脊髓型颈椎病患者,与TMC及融合器相比,3D打印人工椎体及3D打印融合器具有手术时间短、融合椎体高度丢失减少、维持颈椎生理曲度效果好等优点,早期疗效更佳。