Cage-plate Construct Research Articles

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.

PurposeMeta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether zero-profile anchored spacer (Zero-P) could reduce complication rates, while maintaining similar clinical outcomes compared to plate-cage construct (PCC) in the treatment of cervical spondylosis.MethodsAll prospective and retrospective comparative studies published up to May 2015 that compared the clinical outcomes of Zero-P versus PCC in the treatment of cervical spondylosis were acquired by a comprehensive search in PubMed and EMBASE. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies, noncomparative studies, hybrid surgeries, revision surgeries, and surgeries with less than a 12-month follow-up period. The main end points including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, cervical lordosis, fusion rate, subsidence, and dysphagia were analyzed. All studies were analyzed with the RevMan 5.2.0 software. Publication biases of main results were examined using Stata 12.0.ResultsA total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No statistical difference was observed with regard to preoperative or postoperative JOA and NDI scores, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. The Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group (P<0.05, risk difference =0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00–0.26). However, the Zero-P group had a significantly lower postoperative dysphagia rate than the PCC group within the first 2 weeks (P<0.05, odds ratio [OR] =0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91), at the 6th month [P<0.05, OR =0.20, 95% CI 0.04–0.90], and at the final follow-up time [P<0.05, OR =0.13, 95% CI 0.04–0.45].ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggested that surgical treatments of single or multiple levels of cervical spondylosis using Zero-P and PCC were similar in terms of JOA score, NDI score, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. Although the Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group, Zero-P had a lower postoperative dysphagia rate and might have a lower adjacent-level ossification rate.

Comparison of plate-cage construct and stand-alone anchored spacer in the surgical treatment of three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a preliminary clinical study

Background contextAlthough stand-alone cages were advocated to be superior to plate-cage construct (PCC) because of comparable clinical outcomes and fewer plate-related complications, cage dislocation and subsidence were frequently mentioned in multilevel fusion. There are some concerns about whether these issues can be effectively prevented in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) by stand-alone anchored spacer (SAAS). PurposeThe aim was to compare clinical outcomes, radiologic parameters, and complications of PCC and SAAS in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Study design/settingThis was a retrospective comparative study. Patient sampleA total of 38 consecutive patients with three-level CSM (ACDF with PCC, 20 patients; ACDF with SAAS, 18 patients) were reviewed. Outcome measuresClinical outcomes were assessed using Japanese Orthopaedic Association and Neck Disability Index. The radiologic evaluations included cervical alignment (CA), segmental angle (SA), postoperative curvature loss (PCL), and incidence of subsidence. MethodsAll the aforementioned parameters were compared before and after surgery between two groups. Besides, the aforementioned results were also compared between the two groups. The complications were also recorded. ResultsThe mean follow-up period was 30.3 months. No significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes between the two groups (p>.05). Additionally, no significant differences existed in fusion rate between the two groups. There were significant differences in PCL of SA and CA and correction of SA between the two groups (p<.05). Besides, the incidence of subsidence (9 of 54 levels, 16.7%) was recorded in the SAAS group, and the potential of SAAS to reduce the incidence of postoperative dysphagia was not proven. No other complications were observed in this study. ConclusionsIn the surgical treatment of three-level CSM, PCC is superior to SAAS in correction and maintenance of SA and avoiding cage subsidence, although the technique of ACDF with SAAS yielded encouraging clinical outcomes and high fusion rate.

Biomechanical comparison of a two-level anterior discectomy and a one-level corpectomy, combined with fusion and anterior plate reconstruction in the cervical spine

Common fusion techniques for cervical degenerative diseases include two-level anterior discectomy and fusion and one-level corpectomy and fusion. The aim of the study was to compare via in-vitro biomechanical testing the effects of a two-level anterior discectomy and fusion and a one-level corpectomy and fusion, with anterior plate reconstruction. Seven fresh frozen human cadaveric spines (C3-T1) were dissected from posterior musculature, preserving the integrity of ligaments and intervertebral discs. Initial biomechanical testing consisted of no-axial preload and 2Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. Thereafter, discectomies were performed at C4-5 and C5-6 levels, then two interbody cages and an anterior C4-C5-C6 plate was implanted. The flexibility tests were repeated and followed by C5 corpectomy and C4-C6 plate reconstruction. Biomechanical testing was performed again and statistical comparisons among the means of range of motion and axial rotation energy loss were investigated. The two-level cage-plate construct had significantly lower range of motion than the one-level corpectomy-plate construct (P≤0.03). Axial rotation energy loss was significantly (P≤0.03) greater for the corpectomy-plate construct than for the two-level cage-plate construct and the intact condition. A two-level cage-plate construct provides greater stability in flexion, extension and lateral bending motions when compared to a one-level corpectomy-plate construct. A two-level cage-plate is more likely to maintain axial balance by reducing the energy lost in axial rotation.