零切迹椎间融合器与钛板椎间融合器治疗多节段颈椎病的Meta分析

目的 :比较零切迹椎间融合器(Zero-p)与椎间融合器联合钛板固定(cage-plate)治疗多节段颈椎病(multilevel cervical spondylotic)临床疗效、放射学结果及并发症情况。方法 :计算机检索中国知网、万方数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、PubMed, Ovid,Medline数据库。中文关键词为:"零切迹椎间融合器"、"自稳型椎间融合器"、"锚定式椎间融合器"、"钉板内固定"、"Zero-p"、"ROI-C"、"ACDF"、"颈椎前路减压融合";英文检索词"Zero-p"、"Zero-profile"、"ROI-C"、"cage and plate"、"stand-alone anchored spacer"、"anchored cage"、‘‘anchored spacer"、"no-profile"、"ACDF"。由2名评价者严格按照纳入及排除标准进行文献筛选,收集对比Zero-p与cage联合钛板治疗多节段颈椎病的文献,并进行数据提取及质量评价。采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析,比较ACDF术中应用两种不同内固定材料治疗多节段颈椎病的临床疗效、影像学结果及并发症。结果:共纳入8篇高质量文献,共634例患者,零切迹组302例,cage+钛板组332例。Meta分析显示:零切迹组在手术时间[MD=-13.08,95%CI(-23.38,-2.78),P=0.01]、术中出血量[MD=-6.76,95%CI(-12.92,-0.61),P=0.03]与cage+钛板组比较差异具有统计学意义;两组JOA评分差异[MD=-0.14,95%CI(-0.36,0.09),P=0.23]、NDI评分差异[MD=-0.05,95%CI (-0.43,0.33),P=0.80]及手术节段融合率[RR=0.99,95%CI (0.95,1.04),P=0.78]均无统计学差异;零切迹组与cage+钛板组术后C2-7Cobb角[MD=-3.11,95%CI(-4.47,-1.74),P0.0001]及术后椎前软组织厚度[MD=-1.00,95%CI(-1.35,-0.65),P0.00001]差异有统计学意义;零切迹组术后吞咽困难发生率[RR=0.61, 95%CI(0.50,0.75),P0.00001]及术后影像学邻近节段退变发生率[RR=0.20,95%CI(0.06,0.66),P=0.008]均低于cage+钛板组;零切迹组术后融合器沉降发生率[RR=3.07,95%CI(1.73,5.47),P=0.0001]显著高于cage+钛板固定组。结论:两种内固定治疗多节段颈椎病的临床疗效相同,零切迹椎间融合器具有手术时间短、术中出血量少、吞咽困难及邻近节段退变发生率低等特点,但传统cage联合钛板固定在恢复颈椎生理曲度、防止融合器沉降方面更具优势。     

零切迹椎间融合器与钛板-椎间融合器系统对颈前路术后颈椎曲度维持的临床研究

目的探讨零切迹椎间融合器与钛板-椎间融合器(plate-cage construct,PCC)系统在颈椎前路术后颈椎曲度维持方面的差异。方法回顾分析2015年1月—2016年1月收治并行颈前路椎间盘切除减压融合术治疗的100例单节段颈椎间盘突出症患者临床资料,其中50例采用零切迹椎间融合器(A组),50例采用PCC系统(B组)。两组患者性别、年龄、骨密度、病变节段、病程及术前疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、C2~7颈椎曲度、节段Cobb角、相邻椎体高度等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。记录两组手术时间及术中出血量;采用VAS评分和JOA评分评估临床疗效;于侧位X线片测量C2~7颈椎曲度、节段Cobb角和相邻椎体高度,根据Pitzen等椎间融合标准评估椎间融合情况。结果A组手术时间显著短于B组(t=2.442,P=0.021),但两组术中出血量差异无统计学意义(t=0.812,P=0.403)。两组患者均获随访,随访时间24~36个月,平均28.5个月。根据Pitzen等的椎间融合标准,两组均达骨性融合。两组内术后1、24个月VAS评分、JOA评分及C2~7颈椎曲度、节段Cobb角、相邻椎体高度均较术前显著改善(P<0.05);除A组术后24个月C2~7颈椎曲度、节段Cobb角及相邻椎体高度较术后1个月有明显丢失(P<0.05)外,两组其余疗效评价指标术后两时间点间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组术后24个月C2~7颈椎曲度、节段Cobb角、相邻椎体高度差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其余各时间点疗效评价指标差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论颈前路术中采用零切迹椎间融合器虽能获得与PCC系统相似疗效、缩短手术时间,但术后椎间隙高度丢失以及继发颈椎曲度改变均大于PCC系统。     

颈前路减压零切迹椎间融合器治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效

目的探讨颈前路减压零切迹椎间融合器(Zero-P)治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效。方法选取40例接受经颈前路椎间盘切除、脊髓减压术的脊髓型颈椎病患者,随机分为2组,每组20例。对照组采用融合器植入、钉板系统内固定术,观察组应用ZeroP行椎间固定融合术。记录2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量及并发症。比较手术前后颈椎Cobb角、JOA评分及VAS评分。结果观察组手术时间短于对照组,差异有统计学意义;2组术中出血量、术后引流量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);术后观察组颈椎Cobb角、JOA评分均高于对照组,VAS评分、并发症发生率低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈前路减压Zero-P治疗脊髓型颈椎病,手术时间短、疼痛轻、并发症少、且颈椎功能恢复好。     

零切迹椎间融合器治疗单节段颈椎病的疗效

目的 探讨零切迹椎间融合器治疗单节段颈椎病的疗效.方法 采用零切迹椎间融合器治疗48例单节段颈椎病患者.记录手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生情况、骨融合率、吞咽困难情况.比较手术前后JOA评分、颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI)、Odom评级、颈椎Cobb角、手术节段椎间隙高度百分比.结果 患者均获得随访,时间1.5～4.0年...     

颈前路零切迹椎间融合固定双节段颈椎病

[目的]比较颈前路零切迹椎间融合(Zero-P)固定系统与常规笼架-钢板系统用于前路颈椎间切除融合术治疗双节段颈椎病的临床效果.[方法]回顾性分析2016年5月～2019年3月手术治疗的双节段颈椎病患者120例,其中,62例采用零切迹固定系统,58例采用常规笼架-钢板系统.比较两组患者围手术期、随访和影像资料.[结果]...     

对零切迹椎间融合器治疗单节段颈椎病的临床疗效观察

目的 探讨零切迹椎间融合器在单节段颈椎病治疗中的临床疗效。方法 2017年1月至2019年10月,解放军一七一医院脊柱外科共收治单节段颈椎病患者29例,其中神经根型颈椎病患者11例,脊髓型颈椎病患者18例;男16例,女13例;平均年龄51.2(35～74)岁;颈3/4节段2例,颈4/5节段8例,颈5/6节段12例,颈6/7节段7例。所有患者均采用零切迹椎间融合器ACDF手术治疗。观察指标包括手术时间、术中出血量、颈_2-7Cobb角、融合节段Cobb角、T1倾斜角(T1S)、椎间隙高度、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI);观察术后吞咽不适的发生率以及症状持续的时间;观察邻近节段骨化发生的情况。结果 29例患者均获得随访,随访24～57(38.1±5.2)个月;手术时间60～76 min;术中出血量30～210 ml。术后3、6个月,术后1、2年颈2-7Cobb角、合节段Cobb角优于术前(P<0.05)。术后3、6个月、术后1、2年T1S分与术前相比差异无统计学意义。术后3、6个月,术后1、2年手术节段椎间隙高度...     

颈前路减压零切迹椎间融合器与传统钛板固定融合术后相邻节段退变的比较

目的 :比较颈前路减压零切迹椎间融合器(Zero-P)与传统钛板内固定融合术治疗单/双节段脊髓型颈椎病对术后相邻节段退变的影响。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月～2018年3月采用颈前路减压Zero-P与传统钛板内固定融合术治疗的113例脊髓型颈椎病患者的资料,其中Zero-P组(A组)65例,传统钛板组(B组)48例,A组再分为单节段组(n=44)和双节段组(n=21),B组再分为单节段组(n=28)和双节段组(n=20),4组患者年龄、性别构成比、手术节段均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。比较两种术式的手术时间、术中出血量,以及4组的术前、末次随访时的日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedie Association,JOA)评分、疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analog scale,VAS),末次随访时评估患者术后是否出现吞咽困难,并在颈椎侧位X线片上测量术前、术后即刻、末次随访时相邻节段椎间隙高度,评估术前、末次随访时的相邻椎体骨化情况,在颈椎MRI上应用椎间盘Pfirrmann分级评估术前、末次随访时的相邻节段椎间盘退变情况。结果:单节段A组随访时间为18....     

零切迹融合器在颈前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病中的应用价值

【摘要】 目的：探讨零切迹融合器（Zero-P VA）在颈前路椎间盘切除融合（anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,ACDF）术治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病（multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy,MCSM）中的应用价值。方法：回顾性分析2018年8月～2020年8月期间在我科行ACDF治疗的55例MCSM患者的临床资料,其中应用Zero-P VA治疗27例（Zero-P组）,应用传统融合器＋钛板固定治疗28例（钛板组）。观察两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、融合节段椎间高度和颈椎Cobb角。采用颈部疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、颈椎功能障碍指数（neck disability index,NDI）、日本骨科协会（Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA）评分、Bazaz吞咽困难评分及植骨融合率进行临床疗效对比分析。结果：55例患者均顺利完成手术并获得完整随访,随访时间14～35个月,平均23.17±4.75个月。与术前相比较,两组患者术后VAS评分、NDI指数和JOA评分均有明显的改善,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,但两组之间无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。Zero-P组手术时间3节段为95.47±5.24min,4节段为115.12±7.53min,较钛板组手术时间（3节段130.85±6.97min和4节段155.69±9.28min）显著缩短,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;术中出血量两组差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。Zero-P组颈椎Cobb角在术后3个月时为16.71°±1.28°,末次随访时为15.69°±0.26°,均优于术前（10.53°±1.36°）,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;钛板组颈椎Cobb角术后3个月时为16.95°±2.64°,末次随访时为16.01°±1.71°,优于术前（10.67°±0.41°）,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;而两组之间各时间点颈椎Cobb角的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。Zero-P组术后1例（3.70%）发生椎前异物感,术后1个月完全消失,无吞咽困难发生,未见相邻节段退变加速。钛板组术后4例（14.29%）发生椎前异物感,于术后2～4个月逐渐消失;术后3例（10.71%）发生吞咽困难,其中轻度1例（3.57%）,中度2例（7.14%）,3例患者在术后3～6个月逐渐好转,1例（3.57%）出现声音嘶哑,于术后2年取出钛板,患者声音嘶哑无明显改善;2例（7.14%）患者出现相邻节段（C2/3）退变加速,均未出现临床症状,予以保守观察。两组的吞咽困难发生率及相邻节段退变发生率间存在显著性差异（P＜0.05）。术后3个月时,Zero-P组植骨融合率为88.89%,钛板组植骨融合率为92.86%,末次随访时两组患者均达到有效植骨融合,但两组间植骨融合率无明显差异（P＞0.05）。两组患者均无硬脊膜损伤、食管损伤、神经根损伤、椎前血肿、伤口感染、假关节形成等并发症。结论：在ACDF治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病中,使用零切迹融合器能够达到与传统融合器+钛板固定一致的临床疗效,和重塑颈椎曲度并恢复颈椎间隙高度的作用,并且手术时间短,术后患者吞咽困难、相邻节段退变发生率低。     

前路复位减压零切迹椎间融合器内固定治疗下颈椎脱位

目的:探讨一期颈椎前路复位、减压、零切迹椎间融合器内固定术治疗下颈椎脱位的效果。方法:2010年10月~2013年6月收治25例不合并椎板骨折内陷的下颈椎脱位患者,脊髓损伤程度按照Frankel分级:A级4例,B级10例,C级6例,D级4例,E级1例;损伤部位:C3/4 2例,C4/5 5例,C5/6 8例,C6/7 10例;单侧关节突脱位绞锁8例,双侧关节突脱位绞锁17例;受伤至入院时间2h~3d,平均7.6h。均急诊全麻下一期行颈椎前路复位、减压、零切迹椎间融合器内固定治疗,复位方法包括全麻下颅骨牵引、椎体间撑开撬拨复位。结果:全麻下颅骨牵引重量10~15kg,时间10~30min,13例复位,12例未复位。12例颅骨牵引未复位患者中,8例单侧关节突绞锁患者于术中通过椎间盘切除减压后偏中心椎体间撑开、单侧撬拨全部复位,4例双侧关节突绞锁患者通过椎间盘切除减压后椎体间撑开、撬拨复位。手术时间为61±12min(40~82min),术中出血量为180±25ml(100~600ml)。术后出现脑脊液漏1例,未发生大血管、喉返神经损伤或气胸等并发症,无1例出现术后吞咽不适感。随访6.8±2.2个月(5~12个月)。术后3~5个月影像学复查示椎间植骨均获骨性愈合;25例颈椎序列好、内固定位置良好、无内固定移位及断裂。末次随访时,A级2例、B级3例、C级1例、D级1例、E级1例脊髓功能无变化,其余患者脊髓功能均有不同程度改善。JOA评分由术前7.2±0.8分改善至末次随访时的13.8±0.6分,改善率为67.3%。结论:一期全麻下颈椎前路复位、减压、零切迹椎间融合器内固定术治疗下颈椎脱位可达到早期复位、减少脊髓受压时间、手术时间短、固定可靠、减少术后吞咽不适感发生率、疗效满意的效果。     

零切迹椎间融合器治疗多节段伴后凸畸形颈椎病

[目的]评价颈前路零切迹椎间融合器(Zero-profile interbody fusion device,Zero-P)治疗多节段颈椎病伴后凸畸形的临床疗效,探讨其对颈椎后凸畸形矫形的影响。[方法]2012年8月~2015年3月,26例多节段颈椎病患者均行颈椎间隙减压后Zero-P系统固定。比较术前、术后1个月及末次随访患者的X线片、MRI或CT,根据颈椎Cobb角、椎间高度等指标的变化情况,评价零切迹椎间融合器的矫形效果;分析JOA评分、VAS评分、NDI指数,对该术式的临床效果进行评价。[结果]所有患者均获得16~33个月的随访,平均22.7个月。26例患者术后主要症状均明显减轻,无严重术后并发症出现,并随着术后时间的延长症状改善愈发明显甚至消失;患者JOA评分、VAS评分、NDI指数术前分别为:(9.37±0.99)分、(6.70±0.55)分、(23.48±2.39)%,末次随访时分别为:(14.18±1.03)分、(2.02±0.37)分、(10.10±1.67)%;颈椎Cobb角:术前(-2.26±1.04)°,末次随访(14.73±1.00)°;颈椎椎间高度:术前(4.16±0.54)mm,末次随访(7.42±0.88)mm;患者JOA评分、VAS评分、NDI指数、颈椎Cobb角及椎间高度术后均较术前有明显改善,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。[结论]对于伴有后弓畸形的多节段颈椎病患者行颈椎前路减压Zero-P固定可以达到良好的近期治疗效果。     

Efficacy of combined anteroposterior fusion with no plate versus anterior fusion alone with cage and plate for multilevel degenerative cervical disease

Background contextMany studies have reported that anterior fusion alone has high rates of complications, such as pseudoarthrosis, graft subsidence, and graft dislodgement, with multisegmental constructs. No previous studies have compared the outcomes of combined anteroposterior fusion with no plate and anterior fusion alone with a cage and plate.PurposeTo compare the efficacy of combined anteroposterior fusion with that of anterior fusion alone for the treatment of multisegmental degenerative cervical disorder.Study designRetrospective study.Patient sampleSixty-two consecutive patients who underwent anterior fusion alone with a cage and plate or combined anteroposterior fusion with no plate for multisegmental (three or more segments) degenerative cervical disease.Outcome measureRadiological and clinical outcome measures.MethodsPatients in group A (n=36) underwent anterior fusion with a cage and plate construct (AFA); patients in group B (n=26) underwent combined anterior fusion with a cage and posterior fusion with a rod/screw construct (CAPF). The degree and maintenance of the correction angle, fusion rates, and adjacent level degeneration were assessed with radiographs. Clinical outcomes were assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, operative time, blood loss, and rates of complications.ResultsThe mean correction angle did not differ significantly between groups, but the loss of correction at final follow-up was greater in group A than group B (p=.001). Compared with group B, group A had a higher incidence of pseudarthrosis (p=.035), cage subsidence (p=.005), hardware-related complications (p=.032), and dysphagia (p=.012). The mean VAS score for arm pain and the mean NDI score were better for group B than group A (p=.0461, .0360), but the mean VAS score for posterior neck pain was better for group A than group B (p=.0352). Group B had greater blood loss and a longer operative time than group A (blood loss: p=.037; operative time: p=.0001).ConclusionsAlthough combined anterior/posterior fusion is associated with a longer operative time and greater blood loss than anterior fusion alone, the combined approach provides better maintenance of sagittal alignment, a higher rate of fusion, a lower incidence of cage subsidence and adjacent level disease, and better VAS and NDI scores.     

颈前路应用Zero-P椎间融合系统与钛板联合cage融合系统治疗颈椎病的Meta分析

目的:比较颈前路应用Zero-P椎间融合系统与钛板联合cage椎间融合系统治疗颈椎病的疗效与安全性。方法:通过计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国知网数据库2008年1月～2018年6月对比Zero-P椎间融合系统与传统钛板联合cage椎间融合系统治疗颈椎病的临床研究文献,按照纳入与排除标准选择文献,以纽卡斯尔渥太华评分(Newcastle Ottawa scale,NOS)对纳入文献进行质量评价,提取数据包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后吞咽困难发生情况、手术前后日本骨科协会(Japanese Orthopaedic Association,JOA)评分、颈椎功能障碍指数(neck disability index,NDI)、上肢痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue score,VAS)、C3～C7Cobb角、融合率、邻近节段退变。使用Revman 5.3软件进行Meta分析,用固定效应模型或随机效应模型进行数据合并,计算比值比(odds ratio,OR)/标准化均数差(standardized mean difference,SMD)/危险度差值(risk difference,RD)和95%可信区间(confidence interval,CI)。以漏斗图判定发表偏倚。结果 :共有14篇文献总计1159例患者(Zero-P组546例患者,钛板组613例患者)纳入研究。文献质量评价6篇为9分,4篇为8分,4篇为7分。Meta分析结果显示,应用Zero-P椎间融合系统患者的手术时间[SMD=-0.60,95%CI(-0.73,0.46),P0.01]、术中出血量[SMD=-0.50,95%CI(-0.64,-0.37),P0.01]、术后吞咽困难发生率[RD=-0.09,95%CI(-0.14,-0.04),P0.01]及慢性吞咽困难发生率[RD=0.14,95%CI(0.06,0.31),P0.01]显著低于应用钛板联合cage椎间融合系统的患者。两组手术前后JOA评分、NDI、VAS评分、Cobb角、融合率及邻近节段退变无显著性差异(P0.05)。漏斗图显示无明显发表偏倚。结论:与应用钛板联合cage椎间融合系统相比,应用Zero-P椎间融合系统治疗颈椎病亦具有满意的疗效,且能显著减少手术时间、术中出血量,并减少术后吞咽困难发生情况,具有较高的安全性。     

零切迹自稳性颈椎融合器治疗颈椎病合并骨质疏松

目的:探讨零切迹自稳性颈椎融合器(ROI-C)治疗老年颈椎病合并骨质疏松患者的临床疗效.方法:2013年5月至2018年5月经颈椎前路行ROI-C治疗颈椎病患者145例,其中年龄≥60岁且经骨密度测定存在骨质疏松症患者31例,对其进行回顾性分析.31例患者中男9例,女22例,年龄60～84(69.12±7.65)岁;单...     

Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion

Study design

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data in an academic institution.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new type of titanium mesh cage (TMC) in single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).

Methods

Fifty-eight patients consecutive with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) from cervical degenerative spondylosis and isolated ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament were treated with a single-level ACCF using either a new type of TMC (28 patients, group A) or the traditional TMC (30 patients, group B). We evaluated the patients for TMC subsidence, cervical lordosis (C2–C7 Cobb and Cobb of fused segments) and fusion status for a minimum of 30 months postoperatively based on spine radiographs. In addition, neurologic outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Neck pain was evaluated using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The loss of height of the fused segments was less for group A than for group B (0.8 ± 0.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4 mm) (p < 0.01); also, there was a lower rate of severe subsidence (≥3 mm) in group A (4 %, 1/28) than in group B (17 %, 5/30) (p < 0.01). There were no differences in the C2–C7 Cobb and Cobb of fused segments between the groups preoperatively or at final follow-up (p > 0.05), but the Cobb of fused segments immediately postoperative were significantly less for group B than for group A (p < 0.01). All patients, however, had successful fusion (100 %, each). Both groups had marked improvement in the JOA score after operation (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the JOA recovery ratio (p > 0.05). The postoperative VAS neck pain scores for group A were significantly less than that for group B (p < 0.05); severe subsidence was correlated with neck pain.

Conclusions

The new type of TMC provides comparable clinical results and fusion rates with the traditional TMC for patients undergoing single-level corpectomy. The new design TMC decreases postoperative subsidence (compared to the traditional TMC); the unique design of the new type of TMC matches the vertebral endplate morphology which appears to decrease the severity of subsidence-related neck pain in follow-up.     

零切迹桥形锁定融合器与前路cage联合钛板固定治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的:探讨零切迹桥形锁定融合器（ROI-C）与前路cage联合钛板固定治疗双、三节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效差异。方法:回顾性分析2017年6月至2019年10月接受手术治疗的85例双、三节段脊髓型颈椎病患者的病历资料,男43例,女42例;年龄（52.3±8.0）岁（范围28~66岁）;双节段63例、三节段22例。采用ROI...     

颈椎带锁钢板治疗颈椎退变性疾病

目的 探讨前路减压，植骨，颈椎带锁钢板固定治疗颈椎退变性疾病的疗效。方法 23例脊髓型颈椎病和颈椎后纵韧带骨化患者行颈前路钢板固定融合。术前，术后，随访期间评估患者神经状况。平均随访时间11.3个月。结果 所有患者植骨融合，并发症包括伤口大血肿1例，声音嘶哑1例，患者神经功能均改善。结论 前路减压，植骨，颈椎带锁网板固定治疗颈椎退变性疾病疗效满意。     

Outcome analyses of interbody titanium cage fusion used in the anterior discectomy for cervical degenerative disc disease

Anterior discectomy and fusion to treat cervical degenerative disc disease is the preferred procedure for many spine surgeons. The ideal device for structural reconstruction of the anterior cervical spine remains controversial. The purpose of this prospective study was to investigate the effectiveness of a non-threaded titanium cage in performing anterior spinal fusion for cervical degenerative disc disease. The clinical and radiologic data of 78 consecutive patients were reviewed. Neurologic outcome was assessed using Odom's criteria. Neck pain was graded using a 10-point visual analog scale. The cervical spinal curvature, the height of foramina, and fusion status were evaluated on preoperative and postoperative radiographs. Mean follow-up was 24.9 (range 18-35) months. An excellent or good result was found in 92% of the patients with radiculopathy, 69% of those with myelopathy, and 73% of those with myeloradiculopathy. Statistical analyses also showed improvement of cervical pain after surgery (P < 0.001) and a significant increase in foraminal height (P = 0.035). Cervical kyphosis was present in 27 (34%) patients before surgery; it was corrected to lordosis in 9. The fusion rate at 12 months and 24 months was 91% and 95%, respectively. No surgery or cage-related complication occurred in these patients. Non-threaded interbody cage fusion in this study achieved a high fusion rate and had a good neurologic outcome. These results suggest that non-threaded cage fusion is a safe and effective method for anterior cervical discectomy.     

零切迹颈前路椎间融合固定系统与锁定钢板联合椎间融合器治疗颈椎病的对比分析

【摘要】 目的 比较零切迹颈前路椎间融合固定系统与锁定钢板联合椎间融合器治疗颈椎病的手术时间、术中出血量、吞咽困难发生率、疗效和内固定松动率的差异。方法〓回顾性分析2012年~2014年49例于我院行前路手术的单节段颈椎病病例,A组23例采用零切迹颈前路椎间融合固定系统,B组26例采用锁定钢板联合椎间融合器,随访时间分别为术后1周、3个月、6个月、12个月和末次随访(13~39个月,平均23.5个月),对比分析两组的手术时间、术中出血量、吞咽困难发生率、疗效和内固定松动率,吞咽困难发生率、疗效和内固定松动率分别采用Bazaz吞咽困难分级、JOA评分和X线进行评估。结果〓两组病例均一次性完成手术,无患者失访。A组病例手术时间为58±23 min,术中出血量为53±25 mL,术后1周、3个月、6个月、12个月和末次随访吞咽困难发生率分别为17.39%、4.34%、0、0和0,JOA评分由术前的9.18±3.06分上升至术后12个月的15.78±3.21分,改善率为57.15%±29.67%,至末次随访无内固定松动发生。B组病例手术时间为74±28 min,术中出血量为57±19 mL,术后1周、3个月、6个月、12个月和末次随访吞咽困难发生率分别为46.15%、30.76%、23.08%、0和0,JOA评分由术前的9.03±3.14分上升至术后12个月的15.34±3.09分,改善率为58.74%±31.53%,至末次随访无内固定松动发生。两组对比手术时间和6个月吞咽困难发生率有统计学差异。结论〓零切迹颈前路椎间融合固定系统与锁定钢板联合椎间融合器均可固定牢靠,两者治疗颈椎病均能取得满意的临床疗效,但前者在缩短手术时间和降低吞咽困难发生率上更具优势。