Does a Zero-Profile Anchored Cage Offer Additional Stabilization as Anterior Cervical Plate?

Lee, Youngseok; Kim, Young-Baeg; Park, Seung Won

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000864

Cited by 41 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It means that plates maintain anterior disc height to prevent subsidence. In another study, Lee et al [26] reported that the subsidence rate of the Zero-P device (21.7%) was higher than the plate-with-cage (11.1%) On the other hand, Scholz et al [27] reported that subsidence did not occur in patients treated with the Zero-P device in follow-up lasting only 6 months. Our present results showed that the subsidence rate of the Perfect-C (14%) group was lower than that of the Zero-P (25%) group and the Plate-Cage (21%) group at the last follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Noh

Zhang

2018

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We intended to analyze the efficacy of a new integrated cage and plate device called Perfect-C for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to cure single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Methods: We enrolled 148 patients who were subjected to single-level ACDF with one of the following three surgical devices: a Perfect-C implant (41 patients), a Zero-P implant (36 patients), or a titanium plate with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage (71 patients). We conducted a retrospective study to compare the clinical and radiological results among the three groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Noh

Zhang

2018

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical controlled trials for cervical degenerative cervical disease were reviewed. The inclusion criteria of studies in this research as follows: (1) patients had a failure of non-operative treatments for cervical degenerative cervical disease at least 6 months; (2) included comparsion of patients who accepted zero-profile anchored cage with those who received conventional plate-cage construct; (3) analysed and compared the radiological outcomes of subsidence; (4) evaluating index of clinical effects were involved: Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fusion rate, cervical alignment and complications; and (5) follow-up period of more than 12 months.…”

Section: Selection Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After removing 26 duplicated studies and 22 non-English language articles, there were 173 studies left for screening and 163 of records were excluded according to the selection criteria. As a result, ten controlled trials [2,[9][10][11][12][13][24][25][26][27] were screened out for this meta-analysis. The literature search procedure was shown in Table 2 The quality assessment of included studies according to the MOOSE guidelines Nemoto [12] Shin [25] Lee [2] Shi [9] Chen [11] Li [13] Yun [26] Zhou [10] Lu [24] Zhu [27] surgical levels and other informations of patients in each study was listed in Table 1.…”

Section: Literature Search and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of radiographic fusion were described in nine studies [2,[9][10][11][12][13]24,26,27], with fusion rate varying from 71 to 100%. Successful bone union was achieved in 348/377 cases (92.3%) in the ZP group, and 359/379 cases (94.7%) in the CP group.…”

Section: Radiological Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the standard surgical procedure for cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) [1]. The use of anterior plate can increase the stability of cervical spine, promote early intervertebral fusion after surgery, and is widely used in clinical practice [2][3][4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis

Fang

Shen

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Zero-profile anchored cage (ZP) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate?Methods We performed a meta-analysis of studies which compared the subsidence rate of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematical search covered Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analysed by RevMan 5.3 software.Results Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in ZP group was significantly higher than with CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multi-level surgery. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate and cervical aligment in the final followup between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia at each follow-up time than the ZP group.Conclusion ZP had a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP. Although there was a high occurrence of swallowing discomfort, we are more agreed that the anterior plate should be used in multi-level surgery as far as possible to reduce the subsidence and adverse clinical symptoms in the long term.

show abstract

Zero-profile anchored cage reduces risk of postoperative dysphagia compared with cage with plate fixation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Xiao

Liang

et al. 2016

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Does a Zero-Profile Anchored Cage Offer Additional Stabilization as Anterior Cervical Plate?

Abstract: 4.

Cited by 41 publications

References 22 publications

Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Comparison among perfect-C®, zero-P®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis

Zero-profile anchored cage reduces risk of postoperative dysphagia compared with cage with plate fixation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About