Suppr超能文献

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.

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/6766/11999997/2a3b72465bc7/10.1177_21925682251329228-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验