Yachao Zhao1, Sidong Yang1, Yachong Huo1, Zhaohui Li1, Dalong Yang1, Wenyuan Ding2. 1. Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, People's Republic of China. wenyuanding@hebmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of locking stand-alone cage (LSC) compared with anterior plate construct (APC) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared LSC with APC in ACDF. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessment of study quality. Data were analyzed with the Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. The results revealed no significant differences between LSC and APC in ACDF regarding the fusion rate, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analogue scale score, neck disability index score, hospital stay, subsidence rate, cervical lordosis, segmental Cobb angle, and disc height. However, LSC was associated with a significantly shorter operation time, less blood loss, lower overall incidence of dysphagia, and lower adjacent-level ossification (ALO) rate compared with APC. CONCLUSION: In summary, LSC is not only a safe and effective device for ACDF but also has the advantages of significantly reduced operation time, blood loss, overall incidence of dysphagia, and ALO rate over APC. Therefore, LSC is a better alternative than APC for the patients undergoing ACDF procedures.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of locking stand-alone cage (LSC) compared with anterior plate construct (APC) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared LSC with APC in ACDF. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessment of study quality. Data were analyzed with the Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. The results revealed no significant differences between LSC and APC in ACDF regarding the fusion rate, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analogue scale score, neck disability index score, hospital stay, subsidence rate, cervical lordosis, segmental Cobb angle, and disc height. However, LSC was associated with a significantly shorter operation time, less blood loss, lower overall incidence of dysphagia, and lower adjacent-level ossification (ALO) rate compared with APC. CONCLUSION: In summary, LSC is not only a safe and effective device for ACDF but also has the advantages of significantly reduced operation time, blood loss, overall incidence of dysphagia, and ALO rate over APC. Therefore, LSC is a better alternative than APC for the patients undergoing ACDF procedures.
Authors: Matthew I Stein; Aniruddh N Nayak; Roger B Gaskins; Andres F Cabezas; Brandon G Santoni; Antonio E Castellvi Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Aniruddh N Nayak; Matthew I Stein; Chris R James; Roger B Gaskins; Andres F Cabezas; Maxwell Adu-Lartey; Antonio E Castellvi; Brandon G Santoni Journal: Spine J Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 4.166