Min-Ji Tong1, Guang-Heng Xiang1, Zi-Li He1, De-Heng Chen1, Qian Tang1, Hua-Zi Xu1, Nai-Feng Tian2. 1. Zhejiang Spine Research Center, Department of Spine Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. Zhejiang Spine Research Center, Department of Spine Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. Electronic address: tiannaifeng@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion with plate-screw construct has been gradually applied for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy in recent years. However, long cervical plate was associated with complications including breakage or loosening of plate and screws, trachea-esophageal injury, neurovascular injury, and postoperative dysphagia. To reduce these complications, the zero-profile spacer has been introduced. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of zero-profile spacer versus cage-plate construct for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Springer, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies that compared the clinical and radiologic outcomes of zero-profile spacer versus cage and plate for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed. Pooled estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: On the basis of predefined inclusion criteria, 7 studies with a total of 409 patients were included in this analysis. The pooled data revealed that zero-profile spacer was associated with a decreased dysphagia rate at 2, 3, and 6 months postoperatively when compared with the cage-plate group. Both techniques had similar perioperative outcomes, functional outcome, radiologic outcome, and dysphagia rate immediately and at >1-year after operation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of available evidence, zero-profile spacer was more effective in reducing postoperative dysphagia rate for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Both devices were safe in anterior cervical surgeries, and they had similar efficacy in improving the functional and radiologic outcomes. More randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these 2 devices.
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion with plate-screw construct has been gradually applied for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy in recent years. However, long cervical plate was associated with complications including breakage or loosening of plate and screws, trachea-esophageal injury, neurovascular injury, and postoperative dysphagia. To reduce these complications, the zero-profile spacer has been introduced. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of zero-profile spacer versus cage-plate construct for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Springer, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies that compared the clinical and radiologic outcomes of zero-profile spacer versus cage and plate for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed. Pooled estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: On the basis of predefined inclusion criteria, 7 studies with a total of 409 patients were included in this analysis. The pooled data revealed that zero-profile spacer was associated with a decreased dysphagia rate at 2, 3, and 6 months postoperatively when compared with the cage-plate group. Both techniques had similar perioperative outcomes, functional outcome, radiologic outcome, and dysphagia rate immediately and at >1-year after operation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of available evidence, zero-profile spacer was more effective in reducing postoperative dysphagia rate for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Both devices were safe in anterior cervical surgeries, and they had similar efficacy in improving the functional and radiologic outcomes. More randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these 2 devices.
Authors: Mostafa A Gabr; Elisabeth Touko; Amol P Yadav; Isaac Karikari; C Rory Goodwin; Michael W Groff; Luis Ramirez; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-12-26
Authors: Nicolas Lonjon; Emmanuel Favreul; Jean Huppert; Eric Lioret; Manuel Delhaye; Ramzi Mraidi Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.817