Department of the Orthopedic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Dec 15;102(50):e36651. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036651.
A retrospective comparative study. To compare and analyze the differences in the efficiency and safety of ROI-C and traditional titanium plate with fusion cage for the treatment of CSM patients. Clinical data of 105 patients with CSM who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into ROI-C and traditional groups according to the different fusion methods. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, intervertebral space height, and postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. A total of 105 patients were included in this study, with 57 patients in the ROI-C group and 48 patients in the traditional group. The baseline data were similar between the 2 groups (P > .05). The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and the incidence of postoperative dysphagia were significantly lower in the ROI-C group than in the traditional group (P < .05). There were no significant differences in the JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, intervertebral space height, the incidence of postoperative axial symptoms, and adjacent segment degeneration between the 2 groups (P > .05). However, both groups showed significant improvement in the JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, and intervertebral space height compared with before surgery (P < .05). The ROI-C zero-profile internal fixation system and traditional titanium plates with fusion cages can achieve satisfactory clinical treatment results for CSM patients. However, ROI-C has advantages of a shorter operative time, less blood loss, and less postoperative dysphagia. Therefore, the ROI-C zero-profile internal fixation system can be safely and effectively used to treat patients with CSM.
回顾性对比研究。比较和分析 ROI-C 与传统钛板融合笼治疗颈椎病患者的效率和安全性的差异。回顾性分析 2019 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月我院收治的 105 例接受手术治疗的颈椎病患者的临床资料。根据不同的融合方法将患者分为 ROI-C 组和传统组。记录并比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术前及术后 JOA 评分、NDI 评分、颈椎 Cobb 角、椎间隙高度及术后并发症。本研究共纳入 105 例患者,其中 ROI-C 组 57 例,传统组 48 例。两组基线资料比较差异无统计学意义(P>.05)。ROI-C 组手术时间、术中出血量及术后吞咽困难发生率明显低于传统组(P<.05)。两组间 JOA 评分、NDI 评分、颈椎 Cobb 角、椎间隙高度、术后轴性症状及邻近节段退变发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>.05)。但两组术后 JOA 评分、NDI 评分、颈椎 Cobb 角、椎间隙高度均较术前明显改善(P<.05)。ROI-C 零切迹内固定系统与传统钛板融合笼治疗颈椎病患者均能取得满意的临床疗效,但 ROI-C 具有手术时间短、术中出血量少、术后吞咽困难发生率低的优势。因此,ROI-C 零切迹内固定系统可安全、有效地用于治疗颈椎病患者。