PURPOSE: We aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of the zero-profile anchored spacers in the treatment of one-level or two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. METHODS: From April 2011 to April 2013, a total of 63 consecutive patients with cervical degenerative disc disease who underwent one- or two-level ACDF using either the zero-profile anchored spacer or the stand-alone cages and a titanium plate fixation were reviewed for the radiological and clinical outcomes and complications. The zero-profile anchored spacers were used in 30 patients (anchored group) and stand-alone cages with an anterior cervical plate were implanted in 33 cases (non-anchored group). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, clinical and radiological results were compared between the anchored group and the non-anchored group. RESULTS: All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. There were not bolt loosening or rupture of anchoring clips, screws or titanium plates observed in two groups during follow-up period. There were no significant difference in neck disability index scores, Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, fusion rate, and cervical lordosis during follow-up between two groups (P > 0.05), but significant difference in the operation time, blood loss and the presence of dysphagia were found (P < 0.05). There were no adjacent disc degeneration and instability observed in two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The zero-profile anchored spacer achieved similar clinical outcomes compared to ACDF with anterior plating for the treatment of the cervical degenerative disc disease. However, zero-profile anchored spacer was associated with a lower risk of postoperative dysphagia, shorter operation time, less blood loss, and relatively greater simplicity than the stand-alone cage with a titanium plate.
PURPOSE: We aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of the zero-profile anchored spacers in the treatment of one-level or two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. METHODS: From April 2011 to April 2013, a total of 63 consecutive patients with cervical degenerative disc disease who underwent one- or two-level ACDF using either the zero-profile anchored spacer or the stand-alone cages and a titanium plate fixation were reviewed for the radiological and clinical outcomes and complications. The zero-profile anchored spacers were used in 30 patients (anchored group) and stand-alone cages with an anterior cervical plate were implanted in 33 cases (non-anchored group). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, clinical and radiological results were compared between the anchored group and the non-anchored group. RESULTS: All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. There were not bolt loosening or rupture of anchoring clips, screws or titanium plates observed in two groups during follow-up period. There were no significant difference in neck disability index scores, Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, fusion rate, and cervical lordosis during follow-up between two groups (P > 0.05), but significant difference in the operation time, blood loss and the presence of dysphagia were found (P < 0.05). There were no adjacent disc degeneration and instability observed in two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The zero-profile anchored spacer achieved similar clinical outcomes compared to ACDF with anterior plating for the treatment of the cervical degenerative disc disease. However, zero-profile anchored spacer was associated with a lower risk of postoperative dysphagia, shorter operation time, less blood loss, and relatively greater simplicity than the stand-alone cage with a titanium plate.
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