Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with the zero-profile device versus plate and cage in treating cervical degenerative disc disease: A meta-analysis

Zero-profile device was applied to diminish the irritation of the esophagus in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. However, the clinical application of the zero-profile device has not been testified with clinical evidence. The aim of the meta-analysis was to systematically compare the safety and effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile device with plate and cage for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Electronic searches of PubMed and Embase were conducted up to May 2015. Relevant studies were included. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed for continuous data. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI were assessed for dichotomous data. P value <0.05 was considered to be significant. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with plate and cage, zero-p is associated with lower operation time of two-level surgery, less intraoperative blood loss, higher subsidence rate, higher JOA score, lower incidence of dysphagia in short-term (RR: 0.72, 95% CI [0.58, 0.90], P = 0.005, I² = 22%) and long-term (RR: 0.12, 95% CI [0.05, 0.30], P < 0.00001, I² = 0%) and lower Cobb angle of multilevel surgery (WMD: −3.16, 95% CI: [−4.35, −1.97], P < 0.00001, I² = 0%). No significant difference was found in one-level and two-level Cobb angle, fusion rate and operation time of one-level and three-level surgery. Both zero-p implantation and the plate and cage have respective advantages and disadvantages.     

零切迹颈前路椎间融合固定系统在颈前路融合术中的初步应用

目的探讨零切迹颈前路椎间融合固定系统(Zero-p ACIF)在颈椎前路融合术中的应用效果。方法 2009-12-2010-10,对24例(26节段)颈椎疾病患者行前路椎间零切迹椎间融合固定系统内固定,其中颈椎外伤性椎间盘突出、不稳7例,颈椎间盘疾患17例,其中双节段2例。结果24例患者随访12～20个月,平均随访14个月,JOA评分由术前平均8.6分上升到末次随访时15.2分,术后X线片与末次X线片提示椎间高度无丢失,内固定无松动。结论 Zero-p ACIF有较优异的材料和力学性能,能有效维持融合椎间高度,对椎前组织无影响,是一种新的颈前路融合手段。     

颈椎前路减压cage与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较

目的比较颈椎前路减压cage椎间植骨融合钛板内固定与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床疗效及并发症情况。方法纳入自2013-06—2015-06诊治的110例单节段脊髓型颈椎病,采用颈椎前路减压cage椎间植骨融合钛板内固定治疗55例(cage组),采用颈椎前路减压zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗55例(zero-p组)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间,术后12个月JOA评分、NDI指数、颈椎曲度、颈椎节段高度及植骨融合率,术后1周、3个月吞咽困难发生例数。结果所有患者均获得(22.78±3.10)个月随访。2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。2组术后12个月JOA评分、NDI指数、颈椎曲度、颈椎节段高度、植骨融合率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。zero-p组术后1周、3个月吞咽困难发生例数少于cage组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论颈椎前路减压cage椎间植骨融合钛板内固定与zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病均可取得满意的临床疗效,但zero-p椎间植骨融合内固定术后吞咽困难发生的风险明显较低,其安全性更符合临床需要。     

Solis与Zero-p椎间融合器辅助治疗双节段跳跃型颈椎病的疗效分析

目的 比较双节段跳跃型颈椎病患者颈前路减压融合术中应用Solis、Zero-p椎间融合器辅助治疗的有效性及安全性.方法 双节段跳跃型颈椎病患者45例,行Solis椎间融合器辅助的颈前路减压融合术25例为Solis组,行Zero-p椎间融合器辅助的颈前路减压融合术20例为Zero-p组.比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院...