• 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

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

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.

作者信息

Zhao Eric R, Kamil Robert, Kaidi Austin C, Mok Jung K, Oquendo Yousi, Badejo Olatunde, Amen Troy B, Kazarian Gregory S, Asada Tomoyuki, Omurzakov Arsen M, Xu Tim, Subramanian Tejas, Varady Nathan H, Johnson Mitchell A, Zhang Bo, Fourman Mitchell S, Morse Kyle W, Lovecchio Francis C, Iyer Sravisht, Dowdell James E, Kim Han Jo, Qureshi Sheeraz A

机构信息

Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.

Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

Global Spine J. 2025 Apr 14:21925682251329228. doi: 10.1177/21925682251329228.

DOI:10.1177/21925682251329228
PMID:40229971
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11999997/
Abstract

ObjectivesStand-alone (SA) and anterior cage-and-plate (ACP) have been studied in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, fusion assessment methods vary and existing studies are not propensitymatched and often lack patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). We compare fusion rates between propensity-matched single- and multi-level SA versus ACP using a method validated by intraoperative motion testing during revision surgery. We also compare sagittal alignment, perioperative outcomes, and PROMs.MethodsPatients >18 years who underwent primary ACDF were included. 2:1 propensity score matching was performed. Fusions were assessed using 1 year computer tomography and flexion/extension radiographs via validated fusion assessment methods. ALOD was assessed at least 6-months postoperatively. Sagittal alignment was assessed at preoperative, short-term postoperative (2-6 weeks), and long-term postoperative (6 months or more) time points. PROMs, operative time, blood loss, dysphagia, and complications were analyzed.Results153 patients (51 SA) were included after matching. There were no differences in fusion rates overall ( = .662), or by number of surgical levels. There were no differences in ALOD at upper or lower levels, nor was there a difference in ALOD grade. Regarding segmental lordosis, overall lordosis, T1 slope, TS-CL, and PROMs (NDI, SF-12 PCS, VAS neck and arm), there were no differences at preoperative or any postoperative time point. Operative time and blood loss were greater in the ACP cohort, with no differences in complications or postoperative dysphagia.ConclusionsFusion rates, PROMs, radiographic outcomes, complications, and dysphagia rates were all comparable following single and multi-level ACDF between SA and ACP.

摘要

目的

在颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)中,对独立式(SA)和前路椎间融合器加钢板(ACP)进行了研究。然而,融合评估方法各不相同,现有研究未进行倾向评分匹配,且常常缺乏患者报告结局(PROMs)。我们使用翻修手术中经术中运动测试验证的方法,比较倾向评分匹配的单节段和多节段SA与ACP之间的融合率。我们还比较矢状面排列、围手术期结局和PROMs。

方法

纳入年龄大于18岁的接受初次ACDF的患者。进行2:1倾向评分匹配。通过经过验证的融合评估方法,使用1年计算机断层扫描和屈伸位X线片评估融合情况。术后至少6个月评估骨融合最低标准(ALOD)。在术前、术后短期(2 - 6周)和术后长期(6个月或更长时间)时间点评估矢状面排列。分析PROMs、手术时间、失血量、吞咽困难和并发症。

结果

匹配后纳入153例患者(51例SA)。总体融合率(P = 0.662)或手术节段数量方面无差异。上下节段的ALOD无差异,ALOD分级也无差异。关于节段性前凸、总体前凸、T1斜率、TS - CL和PROMs(颈部残疾指数、SF - 12身体成分评分、颈部和手臂视觉模拟评分),术前或任何术后时间点均无差异。ACP队列的手术时间和失血量更多,并发症或术后吞咽困难方面无差异。

结论

SA和ACP在单节段和多节段ACDF后的融合率、PROMs、影像学结果、并发症和吞咽困难发生率均具有可比性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/d5d10a63d2e9/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/2a3b72465bc7/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/fe78d90f67bc/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/a29110539399/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/d5d10a63d2e9/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/2a3b72465bc7/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/fe78d90f67bc/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/a29110539399/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6766/11999997/d5d10a63d2e9/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig4.jpg

相似文献

1
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.
2
Analysis of Associating Factors With C2-7 Sagittal Vertical Axis After Two-level Anterior Cervical Fusion: Comparison Between Plate Augmentation and Stand-alone Cages.双节段颈椎前路融合术后C2-7矢状垂直轴相关因素分析:钢板增强与单纯椎间融合器的比较
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Mar;42(5):318-325. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001776.
3
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a zero-profile integrated plate and spacer device: a clinical and radiological study: Clinical article.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术联合零切迹一体化板和间隔器装置:一项临床和影像学研究:临床文章。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Oct;21(4):529-37. doi: 10.3171/2014.6.SPINE12951. Epub 2014 Aug 8.
4
Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Patients with Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease Treated with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Integrated Interbody Spacers.颈椎相邻节段疾病患者采用前路颈椎间盘切除融合术联合一体式椎间融合器治疗的临床和影像学结果。
World Neurosurg. 2023 Dec;180:e514-e522. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.09.101. Epub 2023 Sep 28.
5
Is the Zero-P Spacer Suitable for 3-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery in Terms of Sagittal Alignment Reconstruction: A Comparison Study with Traditional Plate and Cage System.就矢状位对线重建而言,零切迹椎间融合器是否适用于三节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术:与传统钢板和椎间融合器系统的比较研究
Brain Sci. 2022 Nov 19;12(11):1583. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12111583.
6
The Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion Using a Stand-Alone Implant Versus Traditional Interbody Polyetheretherketone Cage, Titanium Plate, and Screw Instrumentation.使用独立植入物与传统椎间聚醚醚酮融合器、钛板及螺钉器械进行翻修性颈椎前路减压融合术的疗效
Cureus. 2023 Nov 22;15(11):e49246. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49246. eCollection 2023 Nov.
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
Neck Disability at Presentation Influences Long-Term Clinical Improvement for Neck Pain, Arm Pain, Disability, and Physical Function in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.就诊时的颈部残障会影响行前路颈椎间盘切除融合术的患者的颈部疼痛、手臂疼痛、残障、身体功能的长期临床改善。
World Neurosurg. 2022 Jul;163:e663-e672. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.04.060. Epub 2022 Apr 20.
9
Comparative Radiological Outcomes of Stand-alone Cage versus Cage and Plate in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.单纯椎间融合器与椎间融合器加钢板在前路颈椎间盘切除融合术中的放射学比较结果:一项回顾性队列研究
Avicenna J Med. 2025 Jan 28;14(4):216-222. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1801833. eCollection 2024 Oct.
10
A comparison of a new zero-profile, stand-alone Fidji cervical cage and anterior cervical plate for single and multilevel ACDF: a minimum 2-year follow-up study.新型零轮廓独立式斐济颈椎椎间融合器与颈椎前路钢板用于单节段和多节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术的比较:至少2年的随访研究
Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr;26(4):1129-1139. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4739-2. Epub 2016 Aug 23.

本文引用的文献

1
The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.骨生物制剂在单节段与多节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术中的应用:一项系统评价
Global Spine J. 2024 Feb;14(2_suppl):110S-119S. doi: 10.1177/21925682221136482.
2
Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术中结构性同种异体移植物与添加骨生物制剂的机械椎间融合器的比较:一项系统评价
Global Spine J. 2024 Feb;14(2_suppl):34S-42S. doi: 10.1177/21925682231171857.
3
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.
4
Clinical and imaging outcomes of self-locking stand-alone cages and anterior cage-with-plate in three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective comparative study.单开门自锁式融合器与颈椎前路钢板在三节段颈椎前路减压融合术中的临床和影像学效果:一项回顾性对比研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Apr 5;18(1):276. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-03726-4.
5
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.
6
Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.零切迹植入物与传统笼板结构在前路颈椎间盘切除融合术治疗单节段退行性颈椎病中的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Nov 24;17(1):506. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03387-9.
7
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile versus stand-alone cages for two-level cervical spondylosis: A retrospective cohort study.前路颈椎间盘切除融合术:零切迹椎间融合器与单独椎间融合器治疗双节段颈椎病的回顾性队列研究
Front Surg. 2022 Nov 2;9:1002744. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1002744. eCollection 2022.
8
Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.零切迹锚定 cage 与传统 cage-板固定在单节段颈前路椎间盘切除融合术中的临床和影像学比较。
Eur J Med Res. 2022 Sep 30;27(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w.
9
Comparing Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Between the Self-locking Stand-alone Cage and Conventional Cage-plate Construct: A Five-year Retrospective Cohort Study.自锁独立椎间融合器与传统融合器-钢板结构的临床和影像学结果比较:一项五年回顾性队列研究
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2023 Jan 1;48(1):56-66. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004465. Epub 2022 Sep 5.
10
The Variability and Contributions to Cost of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Constructs.颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术的变异性及其对成本的影响。
Clin Spine Surg. 2023 Aug 1;36(7):E317-E323. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001371. Epub 2022 Aug 9.