Literature DB >> 19287352

Implant complications, fusion, loss of lordosis, and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: two-year results of a multi-centric, randomized, controlled study.

Tobias R Pitzen1, Jiri Chrobok, Jan Stulik, Sabine Ruffing, Joerg Drumm, Laurentius Sova, Roman Kucera, Tomas Vyskocil, Wolf Ingo Steudel.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, randomized, multicenter study.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze implant complications and speed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Rigid plate designs, in which the screws are locked to the plate, are in common use and thought to provide more fixation than dynamic designs, in which the screws may glide when the graft is settling. The aim of the study is to analyze (1) implant complications, (2) speed of fusion, (3) loss of lordosis, and (4) clinical outcome in both types of plates.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients were included and assigned by randomization to one of the groups in which they received a routine anterior cervical discectomy and autograft fusion with either a dynamic plate (ABC, study group) or a rigid plate (CSLP, control group). At discharge, after 3 and 6 months and finally after 2 years, implant complications, segmental mobility, absence of radiolucencies, absence of bone sclerosis, evidence of bridging trabecular bone, loss of lordosis, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Score were recorded. All radiographic measurements were performed by an independent radiologist.
RESULTS: There have been 4 patients with implant complications within the control group and no implant complications within the study group, P = 0.045. Mean segmental mobility before discharge for the study group was 1.7 mm, 1.4 mm after 3 months, 0.8 mm after 6 months, and 0.4 mm after 2 years. For the control group, these values were 1.0, 1.8, 1.6, and 0.5 mm. The difference at 6 months between both groups was significant (P = 0.024). Neither absence of radiolucencies, nor absence of sclerosis, nor evidence of bridging bone showed significant differences between the 2 groups through the postoperative follow-up (P > 0.05). The loss of segmental lordosis for the study group with respect to intraoperative radiograph was 1.3 degrees at discharge and 4.3 degrees after 2 years. For the control group, these values were 0.9 degrees , 0.7 degrees . The difference at 2 years was significant (P = 0.003). Clinical postoperative outcome (VAS and ODI) was not different between the 2 groups through the postoperative follow-up (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Dynamic cervical plate designs provide less implant complications (no patient) compared with rigid plate designs (4 patients). Speed of fusion was faster in the presence of a dynamic plate. However, loss of segmental lordosis is significantly higher if dynamic plates are used, which did not result in differences regarding clinical outcome between dynamic and constrained plates after 2 years. Thus, dynamic plates should be considered to be the preferred treatment option because of the lower risk for implant failure-related revision surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19287352     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318198ce10

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  39 in total

1.  Biomechanics of dynamic cervical plates may influence clinical results.

Authors:  Javier Melchor Duart-Clemente; María Luisa Gandía-González; Luis Álvarez-Galovich; Julio Vicente Duart-Clemente
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-12-19

2.  In vitro evaluation of translating and rotating plates using a robot testing system under follower load.

Authors:  Y Yan; K M Bell; R A Hartman; J Hu; W Wang; J D Kang; J Y Lee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Systematic review of the effect of dynamic fixation systems compared with rigid fixation in the anterior cervical spine.

Authors:  Ricardo Rezende Campos; Ricardo Vieira Botelho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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.

Authors:  Zhonghai Li; Yantao Zhao; Jiaguang Tang; Dongfeng Ren; Jidong Guo; Huadong Wang; Li Li; Shuxun Hou
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Can an Endplate-conformed Cervical Cage Provide a Better Biomechanical Environment than a Typical Non-conformed Cage?: A Finite Element Model and Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Hao-Cheng Xu; Bo Yin; Xin-Lei Xia; Xiao-Sheng Ma; Hong-Li Wang; Jun Yin; Ming-Hao Shao; Fei-Zhou Lyu; Jian-Yuan Jiang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

6.  Anterior cervical interbody fusion with the Zero-P spacer: mid-term results of two-level fusion.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Chen; Huajing Chen; Peng Cao; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Giovanni Grasso
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Comparison of Radiologic Outcomes of Different Methods in Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Authors:  O Ik Kwon; Dong Wuk Son; Sang Weon Lee; Geun Sung Song
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2016-09-30

Review 9.  Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jiaquan Luo; Sheng Huang; Min Gong; Xuejun Dai; Manman Gao; Ting Yu; Zhiyu Zhou; Xuenong Zou
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-07-18

10.  Postoperative changes of early-phase inflammatory indices after uncomplicated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using allograft and demineralised bone matrix.

Authors:  Chae-Gwan Kong; Young-Yul Kim; Jong-Beom Park
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.