A Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer in Multilevel Cervical Anterior Interbody Fusion

Abstract

N/A.

A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up

“…The success of the ACDF relies on a thorough decompression and achievement of solid intervertebral fusion. Biomechanical studies have revealed that the self-locking stand-alone cage provides less stiffness of cervical spine as locking plate does in 2 or 3-level instrumentation [14,15]. But high fusion rate can be achieved using these kinds of cages for the treatment of single-level, double-level, and even three-level cervical spondylopathy (Table 3) [7][8][9][10][16][17][18].…”

Is the improvement of cervical alignment really essential after three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? A minimal 5-year follow-up

“…The titanium alloy plate was positioned in anterior vertebral line and the anterior intervertebral disk height might decrease less than posterior; in addition, the CL was restored by pulling the involved vertebrae towards the prebent lordotic ventral plate, which could make the segmental angle more improved [6]. While the zero-profile anchored spacer, consisting of a cage and single or two anchoring clips, showed less ability to restore CL than ACP [18]. On the other hand, a larger improvement on OPCL added more weights on CL reconstruction in three-level ACDF.…”

Ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is associated with a higher risk of revision surgery and perioperative complications: an analysis of a large nationwide database

“…Another potential factor driving this observed difference may be due to external pressures in the ambulatory surgery center setting, wherein shorter operative times and a more maximized use of scheduled operating room time are incentivized because of financial incentives and staff leaving early. In addition, newer standalone ACDF systems allow for significantly reduced surgical times as compared with traditional plate and screw systems, despite reductions in biomechanical stiffness, which may lead to an increased risk of pseudarthrosis [26,27]. Adjacent segment disease may also contribute to these higher rates of revision surgery, which is a well-known long-term complication of the ACDF procedure.…”