Comparison of Zero-profile Anchored Spacer Versus Plate-and-Cage After 1-Level ACDF With Complete Uncinate Process Resection: A 3-Year Assessment of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes

Assessing Surgical Outcomes for Cage Plate System versus Stand-Alone Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for addressing cervical spine conditions. It involves the utilization of either cage plate system (CPS) or stand-alone cage (SC). The objective of our study is to compare perioperative complications, patient-reported clinical outcomes measures, and radiographic outcomes of SC versus CPS in ACDF.

METHODS

We carried out a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of science, Medline, and Google Scholar. All studies comparing the outcomes between CPS versus SC in ACDF were included.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies, 33 observational and 8 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. We found that both devices demonstrated comparable effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF with respect to Japanese Orthopedic Association Score, Neck Disability Index score, visual analog score, and fusion rates. CPS demonstrated superior performance in maintaining disc height, cervical lordosis, and exhibited lower incidence rates of cage subsidence. SC showed significant advantages over CPS in terms of shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter duration of hospitalization, as well as lower incidence rates of early postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the included studies had monosegmented fusion, and there wasn't enough data to set recommendations for the multisegmented fusions. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to draw more definitive conclusions to provide evidence for clinicians to make clinical decisions.

Self-locking stand-alone cage versus cage-plate fixation in monosegmental anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a minimum 2-year follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, self-locking stand-alone cages (SSC) are commonly applied in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), as are cage-plate constructs (CPC). However, it remains controversial concerning the long-term effectiveness of both apparatuses. Our purpose is to compare long-term effectiveness of SSC with CPC in monosegmental ACDF.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were queried to identify studies comparing SSC versus CPC in monosegmental ACDF. The meta-analysis was carried out with the use of the Stata MP 17.0 software package.

RESULTS

Ten trials with 979 patients were included. Compared to CPC, SSC significantly reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospitalisation, cervical Cobb angle at final follow-up, 1-month postoperative dysphagia rate, and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) at final follow-up. No significant difference was found regarding 1-month postoperative cervical Cobb angle, JOA scores, NDI scores, fusion rate and cage subsidence rate at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Both devices achieved similar long-term effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF regarding JOA scores, NDI scores, fusion rate and cage subsidence rate. SSC had significant advantages over CPC in reducing surgical duration, intraoperative bleeding, duration of hospitalisation, as well as rates of dysphagia and ASD after surgery. Therefore, SSC is a better option than CPC in monosegmental ACDF. However, SSC is inferior to CPC in maintaining cervical curvature at long-term follow-up. Whether radiological changes affect clinical symptoms needs confirmation in trials with longer follow-up.

Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with the Zero-profile (Zero-p) were evaluated in comparison with the anterior cervical cage-plate construct (CPC).

METHODS

We performed a systematic search covering PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (NCKI), Wan Fang Database, and Wei Pu Database. Articles focused on single-level ACDF or data of the single - level that can be extracted were included, and articles that did not directly compare Zero-p and CPC were excluded. Twenty-seven studies were included with a total of 1866 patients, 931 in the Zero-p group and 935 in the CPC group. All outcomes were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis outcomes indicated that operative time (WMD = - 12.47, 95% CI (- 16.89, - 8.05), P < 0.00001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = - 13.30, 95% CI (- 18.83, - 7.78), P < 0.00001), risk of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) (OR 0.31, 95% CI (0.20, 0.48), P < 0.0001), risk of dysphagia of short-term (OR 0.40, 95% CI (0.30, 0.54), P < 0.0001), medium-term (OR 0.31, 95% CI (0.20, 0.49), P < 0.0001), and long-term (OR 0.29, 95% CI (0.17, 0.51), P < 0.0001) of Zero-p group were significantly lower. The JOA score of Zero-p group at the final follow-up was significantly higher (WMD = - 0.17, 95% CI (- 0.32, - 0.03), P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in length of stay (LOS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analogue Score (VAS), fusion rate, segmental Cobb angle, cervical Cobb angle, prevertebral soft tissue thickness (PSTT), SF-36, subsidence, implant failure, and hoarseness between the two groups. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022347146.

CONCLUSION

Zero-p group reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss, JOA score at follow-up and reduced the incidence of dysphagia and postoperative ASD, but the two devices had the same efficacy in restoring the cervical curvature, preventing the cage subsidence, and in postoperative VAS, NDI, LOS, PSTT, SF-36, fusion rate, implant failure, and hoarseness in single-level ACDF. The use of Zero-p in single-level ACDF was recommended.