• 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

对于颈椎退行性疾病的前路颈椎间盘切除融合手术中的椎间融合器植入,前路颈椎钢板固定是否必要?基于荟萃分析系统综述的循证研究。

Is anterior cervical plating necessary for cage constructs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical degenerative disorders? Evidence-based on the systematic overview of meta-analyses.

作者信息

Viswanathan Vibhu Krishnan, Muthu Sathish

机构信息

Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

出版信息

World Neurosurg X. 2023 Mar 21;18:100185. doi: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100185. eCollection 2023 Apr.

DOI:10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100185
PMID:37008560
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10064425/
Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of meta-analyses to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone cage (SAC) and anterior cervical cage-plate constructs (ACCPC).

METHODS

The systematic overview was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and reported as per Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions following the methodology described in reporting Overview of reviews.

RESULTS

Based on the available level-1 evidence, SAC offers significantly better benefits over ACCPC, in terms of shorter operative time ( < 0.00001; I = 0%), lower blood loss ( = 0.01; I = 0%), lesser rates of post-operative dysphagia ( = 0.02; I = 0%), reduced overall expenditure ( = 0.001) and long-term adjacent segment degeneration (ASD)/anterior longitudinal ligament ossification (ALO;  = 0.0003; I = 0%). There is no significant difference between the two constructs with regard to fusion rates, functional outcome scores, follow-up radiological sagittal alignment parameters or cage subsidence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence, SAC constructs in ACDF reduce blood loss, decreases operative time, mitigates post-operative dysphagia, lessens hospital-related expenditure and minimises long-term ASD rates.

摘要

研究设计

对荟萃分析的系统评价。

目的

对荟萃分析进行系统评价,以比较单纯椎间融合器(SAC)和颈椎前路椎间融合器钢板结构(ACCPC)在前路颈椎间盘切除融合术后的临床和影像学结果。

方法

本系统综述按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行,并根据Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册,按照报告综述概述中描述的方法进行报告。

结果

基于现有的一级证据,在手术时间更短(P<0.00001;I²=0%)、失血量更低(P=0.01;I²=0%)、术后吞咽困难发生率更低(P=0.02;I²=0%)、总费用降低(P=0.001)以及长期相邻节段退变(ASD)/前纵韧带骨化(ALO;P=0.0003;I²=0%)方面,SAC比ACCPC具有显著更好的效益。在融合率、功能结局评分、随访影像学矢状位对线参数或椎间融合器下沉方面,两种结构之间没有显著差异。

结论

基于现有证据,ACDF中的SAC结构可减少失血量、缩短手术时间、减轻术后吞咽困难、降低医院相关费用并使长期ASD发生率降至最低。

相似文献

1
Is anterior cervical plating necessary for cage constructs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical degenerative disorders? Evidence-based on the systematic overview of meta-analyses.对于颈椎退行性疾病的前路颈椎间盘切除融合手术中的椎间融合器植入,前路颈椎钢板固定是否必要?基于荟萃分析系统综述的循证研究。
World Neurosurg X. 2023 Mar 21;18:100185. doi: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100185. eCollection 2023 Apr.
2
The efficacy of anchored stand-alone spacers in comparison to conventional cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for clinical and radiological outcomes.在颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合手术中,与传统椎间融合器和钢板相比,锚定独立间隔物的疗效:对临床和影像学结果的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Brain Spine. 2024 Jan 18;4:102748. doi: 10.1016/j.bas.2024.102748. eCollection 2024.
3
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.
4
Clinical outcomes of locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.两种两平面前路颈椎间盘切除融合术式中,单独使用锁定型椎间融合器与前路钢板内固定系统的临床效果比较:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
Eur Spine J. 2019 Jan;28(1):199-208. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5811-x. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
5
Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Stand-Alone Interbody Cage Versus a Conventional Cage-Plate Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术:独立椎间融合器与传统椎间融合器钢板技术的比较:系统评价与Meta分析
Global Spine J. 2019 Jun;9(4):446-455. doi: 10.1177/2192568218774576. Epub 2018 May 17.
6
Thorough Comparative Analysis of Stand-Alone Cage and Anterior Cervical Plate for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.独立椎间融合器与颈椎前路钢板在颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗颈椎退行性疾病中的全面比较分析:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Asian Spine J. 2022 Oct;16(5):812-830. doi: 10.31616/asj.2021.0123. Epub 2022 Mar 11.
7
Radiographic Fusion Rates Following a Stand-alone Interbody Cage Versus an Anterior Plate Construct for Adjacent Segment Disease After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术后相邻节段病变行单纯椎间融合器与前路钢板固定的融合率比较
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Jun 1;45(11):713-717. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003387.
8
Locking stand-alone cages versus anterior plate constructs in single-level fusion for degenerative cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.在退变性颈椎病单节段融合中,锁定独立椎间融合器与前路钢板固定结构的比较:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Eur Spine J. 2017 Sep;26(9):2258-2266. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5015-9. Epub 2017 Mar 10.
9
Comparison of anterior cervical fusion after two-level discectomy or single-level corpectomy: sagittal alignment, cervical lordosis, graft collapse, and adjacent-level ossification.两种手术方式(两节段椎间盘切除术或单节段椎体次全切除术)治疗颈椎间盘疾病后颈椎融合的比较:矢状位曲度、颈椎前凸度、移植物塌陷及临近节段骨化。
Spine J. 2010 Mar;10(3):193-9. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.09.006. Epub 2009 Oct 21.
10
Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Standalone Versus Cage and Plate Constructs for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.单纯前路颈椎间盘切除融合术与椎间融合器加钢板植入融合术的临床及影像学结果比较
Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Jun;15(3):403-412. doi: 10.14444/8060. Epub 2021 May 7.

引用本文的文献

1
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.

本文引用的文献

1
Thorough Comparative Analysis of Stand-Alone Cage and Anterior Cervical Plate for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.独立椎间融合器与颈椎前路钢板在颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗颈椎退行性疾病中的全面比较分析:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Asian Spine J. 2022 Oct;16(5):812-830. doi: 10.31616/asj.2021.0123. Epub 2022 Mar 11.
2
Degenerative Cervical Disorder-Stand-alone Cage Versus Cage and Cervical Plate: A Systematic Review.退行性颈椎疾病——单纯椎间融合器与椎间融合器加颈椎前路钢板:一项系统评价
Global Spine J. 2021 Mar;11(2):249-255. doi: 10.1177/2192568220906173. Epub 2020 Mar 5.
3
Improved Dysphagia Outcomes in Anchored Spacers Versus Plate-Screw Systems in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术中,锚定间隔器与钢板螺钉系统相比改善吞咽困难的效果:一项系统评价
Global Spine J. 2020 Dec;10(8):1057-1065. doi: 10.1177/2192568219895266. Epub 2019 Dec 26.
4
Locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.后路单开门椎管扩大成形术与颈椎前路减压融合术治疗颈椎间盘突出症的疗效比较:一项基于随机对照试验的系统评价和 Meta 分析。
Eur Spine J. 2020 Nov;29(11):2734-2744. doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06561-x. Epub 2020 Aug 8.
5
Incidence of dysphagia of zero-profile spacer versus cage-plate after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A meta-analysis.颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术后零切迹椎间融合器与椎间融合器-钢板吞咽困难发生率的Meta分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jun;98(25):e15767. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015767.
6
Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Stand-Alone Interbody Cage Versus a Conventional Cage-Plate Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术:独立椎间融合器与传统椎间融合器钢板技术的比较:系统评价与Meta分析
Global Spine J. 2019 Jun;9(4):446-455. doi: 10.1177/2192568218774576. Epub 2018 May 17.
7
Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Self-Locking Stand-Alone Cage and Cage with Anterior Plate for Multilevel Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis.自锁独立椎间融合器与带前路钢板椎间融合器用于多节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术的临床与影像学结果比较:一项荟萃分析
World Neurosurg. 2019 May;125:e117-e131. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.12.218. Epub 2019 Jan 21.
8
Clinical outcomes of locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.两种两平面前路颈椎间盘切除融合术式中,单独使用锁定型椎间融合器与前路钢板内固定系统的临床效果比较:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
Eur Spine J. 2019 Jan;28(1):199-208. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5811-x. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
9
Zero-Profile Versus Cage and Plate in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with a Minimum 2 Years of Follow-Up: A Meta-Analysis.零切迹与椎间融合器及钢板用于颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术并至少随访2年的Meta分析
World Neurosurg. 2018 Dec;120:e551-e561. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.128. Epub 2018 Aug 29.
10
Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up.零轮廓锚定椎间融合器(ROI-C)与传统椎间融合器-钢板结构治疗非连续性双节段颈椎间盘退变疾病(CDDD)的临床效果比较:至少2年随访
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Feb;97(5):e9808. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009808.