Literature DB >> 24262773

The application of a zero-profile implant in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Zhi-dong Wang1, Ruo-fu Zhu1, Hui-lin Yang2, Min-feng Gan1, Shi-kai Zhang1, Min-jie Shen1, Chao Chen1, Quan Yuan1.   

Abstract

We analyzed the clinical efficacy of the Zero-P implant (Synthes GmbH Switzerland, Oberdorf, Switzerland) in the treatment of single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The clinical data of 47 patients with single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-two patients were treated with a Zero-P implant (Group A) and 25 with a titanium plate with cage (Group B) between January 2009 and September 2010. Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and JOA recovery rate, dysphagia incidence and adjacent segment degeneration rate were measured. The mean operative time in Group A and Group B was 98.18 minutes and 105.4 minutes, respectively. The average intraoperative blood loss in Group A and Group B was 87.95 ml and 92.4 ml, respectively. There were no statistical differences in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (p>0.05). The JOA score was significantly improved in the two groups (p<0.001), and the recovery rate was similar (60.86% for Group A versus 62.95% for Group B, p>0.05). Dysphagia was experienced by one (4.5%) patient in Group A and eight (32%) patients in Group B, which was significantly different (p=0.044). There was no statistical significance found in the adjacent level degeneration rates between Group A and Group B (p=0.330). The Zero-P implant and traditional titanium plate with cage are effective treatments for single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy, but the Zero-P implant has a lower dysphagia incidence.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Efficacy; Internal fixation; Intervertebral fusion device

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24262773     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.05.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  20 in total

1.  Meta-Analysis Comparing Zero-Profile Spacer and Anterior Plate in Anterior Cervical Fusion.

Authors:  Jun Dong; Meng Lu; Teng Lu; Baobao Liang; Junkui Xu; Jun Zhou; Hongjun Lv; Jie Qin; Xuan Cai; Sihua Huang; Haopeng Li; Dong Wang; Xijing He
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence of Patient-Reported Dysphagia After Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion with the Zero-Profile Implant System.

Authors:  Yi Yang; Litai Ma; Hao Liu; MangMang Xu
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.438

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.

Authors:  Yuqiao Chen; Guohua Lü; Bing Wang; Lei Li; Lei Kuang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Zero-profile anchored cage reduces risk of postoperative dysphagia compared with cage with plate fixation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  ShanWen Xiao; ZhuDe Liang; Wu Wei; JinPei Ning
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Clinical comparison of Zero-profile interbody fusion device and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion in treating cervical spondylosis.

Authors:  Bin Yan; Lin Nie
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

6.  Surgical Outcome of a Zero-profile Device Comparing with Stand-alone Cage and Anterior Cervical Plate with Iliac Bone Graft in the Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Authors:  Jae Sik Shin; Sung Han Oh; Pyoung Goo Cho
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2014-09-30

7.  Cervical Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone Cage versus Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer in Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion : Minimum 2-Year Assessment of Radiographic and Clinical Outcome.

Authors:  Hyun-Jun Cho; Junseok W Hur; Jang-Bo Lee; Jin-Sol Han; Tai-Hyoung Cho; Jung-Yul Park
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2015-08-28

8.  Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate implant in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of degenerative cervical spondylosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Haiyu Shao; Jinping Chen; Bin Ru; Feifei Yan; Jun Zhang; Shaonan Xu; Yazeng Huang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  Comparison of zero-profile anchored spacer versus plate-cage construct in treatment of cervical spondylosis with regard to clinical outcomes and incidence of major complications: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Weijun Liu; Ling Hu; Junwen Wang; Ming Liu; Xiaomei Wang
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 2.423

10.  Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  ZhiDong Wang; RuoFu Zhu; HuiLin Yang; MinJie Shen; Genlin Wang; Kangwu Chen; Minfeng Gan; Mao Li
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.