A Clinical Comparison of Anterior Cervical Plates Versus Stand-Alone Intervertebral Fusion Devices for Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Procedures

Diagnosis and treatment of postoperative voice complications following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a wide discrepancy in the literature regarding the incidence of postoperative dysphonia following ACDF. How postoperative dysphonia is measured is also inconsistent, with many studies relying on patient-reported outcomes rather than diagnostic laryngoscopy. The purpose of this study was to consolidate information regarding dysphonia after ACDF to improve diagnosis and management.

METHODS

A comprehensive database search was performed using key terms. Inclusion criteria was as follows: published within 10 years, subjects > 18 years of age, ACDF for treatment of cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, reports of postoperative changes in voice, and at least one postoperative follow-up between one week and six months. Works that included endoscopic surgical techniques and/or subjects with a history of cancer or trauma to the operated region were excluded. Reviews and meta-analyses were also removed from analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one eligible studies were analyzed. Evaluation methods varied, with incidence rates ranging from 0.3 to 27%. Symptoms typically arose within one week post-op, persisting up to one year. Treatment modalities included steroids, speech therapy, and laryngoplasty. Mechanisms included recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, endotracheal tube pressure, and postoperative edema.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative voice complications following ACDF represent a clinically significant outcome that can impact a patient's quality of life. Patients should be counseled preoperatively about the potential risk, and managed postoperatively to mitigate long-term impairments. Involvement of otolaryngologists may help prevent these complications or allow for early detection and management, underscoring the importance of multidisciplinary care in optimizing surgical outcomes.

Biomechanical Comparison of Anterior Cervical Plate Fixation Versus Integrated Fixation Cage for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric, biomechanic study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the range of motion profiles of the cervical spine following one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) constructs instrumented with either an interbody cage and anterior plate or integrated fixation cage in a cadaveric model.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While anterior plates with interbody cages are the most common construct of fixation in ACDF, newer integrated cage-plate devices seek to provide similar stability with a decreased implant profile. However, differences in postoperative cervical range of motion between the 2 constructs remain unclear.

METHODS

Six cadaveric spines were segmented into 2 functional spine units (FSUs): C2-C5 and C6-T2. Each FSU was nondestructively bent in flexion-extension (FE), right-left lateral bending (LB), and right-left axial rotation (AR) at a rate of 0.5°/s under a constant axial load until a limit of 2-Nm was reached to evaluate baseline range of motion (ROM). Matched pairs were then randomly assigned to undergo instrumentation with either the standard anterior cage and plate (CP) or the integrated fixation cage (IF). Following instrumentation, ROM was then remeasured as previously described.

RESULTS

For CP fixation, ROM increased by 61.2±31.7% for FE, 36.3±20.4% for LB, and 31.7±19.1% for AR. For IF fixation, ROM increased by 64.2±15.5% for FE, 56.7±39.8% for LB, and 94.5±65.1% for AR. There was no significant difference in motion between each group across FE, LB, and AR.

CONCLUSION

This biomechanical study demonstrated increased motion in both the CP and IF groups relative to the intact, un-instrumented state. However, our model showed no differences in ROM between CP and IF constructs in any direction of motion. These results suggest that either method of instrumentation is a suitable option for ACDF with respect to constructing stiffness at time zero.

Cage only or cage with plate fixation in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery - analysis of a national multicenter dataset

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) is a surgical technique that can be used to treat several conditions of the cervical spine. Small sized studies have reported differences in radiological findings between cage only and cage with plate fusion techniques but no differences in clinical outcome, hence, larger studies are needed.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ACDF between cage only and cage with plate fixation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study design on prospectively collected registry data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Individuals treated for cervical degenerative radiculopathy, with ACDF using either cage only or cage with plate fixation were identified in the Swedish Spine registry (Swespine). Included individuals had available baseline and 1-year postoperative data for the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for neck and arm pain.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) included were NRS for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). Complications reported by clinicians and patients were also available in the Swespine registry, as well as the degree of satisfaction at the 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

Outcomes at the 1-year follow-up were compared between the cage only or cage with plate groups. In a secondary analysis, one or two levels of surgery was compared between the groups. The number of patients that reached the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in improvement after treatment was calculated and compared between the groups. The Mann Whitney-U test was used for continuous variables and the Chi2 test for categorical variables.

RESULTS

The groups included 344 individuals instrumented with cage only, and 334 receiving cage with plate fixation. NDI improvement was -14.0 points (95% CI: -12.2-[-15.8]) in the cage only group and -17.9 points (95% CI: -16.1 - [-19.8]) points in the cage with plate group (p=.007). A lower rate of hoarseness post-operatively was reported by the cage only group (OR: 0.65 [0.45-0.93], p=.026). No differences were seen in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Clinical improvement was seen in both groups, but the improvement of NDI was better in the cage with plate group and the rate of hoarseness was lower in the cage only group.

Assessing Surgical Outcomes for Cage Plate System versus Stand-Alone Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for addressing cervical spine conditions. It involves the utilization of either cage plate system (CPS) or stand-alone cage (SC). The objective of our study is to compare perioperative complications, patient-reported clinical outcomes measures, and radiographic outcomes of SC versus CPS in ACDF.

METHODS

We carried out a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of science, Medline, and Google Scholar. All studies comparing the outcomes between CPS versus SC in ACDF were included.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies, 33 observational and 8 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. We found that both devices demonstrated comparable effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF with respect to Japanese Orthopedic Association Score, Neck Disability Index score, visual analog score, and fusion rates. CPS demonstrated superior performance in maintaining disc height, cervical lordosis, and exhibited lower incidence rates of cage subsidence. SC showed significant advantages over CPS in terms of shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter duration of hospitalization, as well as lower incidence rates of early postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the included studies had monosegmented fusion, and there wasn't enough data to set recommendations for the multisegmented fusions. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to draw more definitive conclusions to provide evidence for clinicians to make clinical decisions.

Complications of the Use Allograft in 1- or 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

Study Design: Systematic literature reviewObjective: To critically analyze the literature and describe the complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted for literature published between January 2000 and August 2020 reporting complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level ACDF.Results: From 584 potentially relevant citations, 21 met the inclusion criteria (4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 4 prospective, and 13 retrospective studies). The patient number varied between 26 and 463 in comparative studies (RCT and non-RCT) and between 29 and 345 in non-comparative studies. Fusion rate was reported in 14 studies and ranged between 68.5-100%. The most frequently reported complication was post-operative dysphagia or dysphonia, with incidences ranging between .5% and 14.4%. Revision surgery was the second most reported complication (14 studies) and ranged between 0% and 10.3%. Wound-related complications were reported in 6 studies and ranged between 0% and 22.8%.Conclusion: The overall reporting of complications was low with very few comparative studies. Reported complications with allografts are within the range of other osteobiologics and autografts and in most cases may not attributable to the use of osteobiologics and may be complications of the procedure itself. Comparative studies with a more robust methodology analyzing complications with allograft and other osteobiologics are needed to inform current practice with strong recommendations.

The efficacy of anchored stand-alone spacers in comparison to conventional cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for clinical and radiological outcomes

Introduction

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is commonly performed with cage and plate constructs to stabilise diseased or injured cervical segments. Despite it being a commonly performed procedure, there are notable rates of associated morbidity reported in the literature. Stand-alone spacers represent a novel form of instrumentation to conventional cage and plate constructs.

Research question

Do stand-alone spacers have improved operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes in ACDF cohorts when compared to cage and plate constructs?

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of PubMed/Medline, Embase and Google Scholar databases per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes guidelines. Studies of interest included cage and plate instrumentation versus anchored stand-alone spacers for patients undergoing ACDF. Pre- and post-operative clinical and radiological outcomes were collated and compared for significance between cohorts.

Results

10 RCTs were identified and included with 779 patients total. Mean age of the entire cohort was 50.1 years. 62% (483/779) of the cohort were male. 384 patients underwent ACDF with stand-alone cage, while 395 had ACDF with conventional cage and plate. Stand-alone spacers significantly outperformed conventional instrumentation in terms of estimated blood loss (p < 0.01), total postoperative complications (p < 0.01), dysphagia rates (p = 0.04) and adjacent segment disease (p = 0.04). Non-inferiority was evident in both patient reported outcome measures and radiological outcomes.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis highlights the efficacy of stand-alone spacers for the management of primarily cervical spondylitic disease for both single-level and multi-level pathology, and thus presents an attractive alternative to conventional instrumentation for patients undergoing ACDF surgery.

Trends of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion documentation after the 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services coding audit

OBJECTIVE

With the use of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) expected to rise by 13.3% from 2020 to 2040, the increased usage of interbody cages with integral anterior fixation prompted a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) review, which resulted in coding changes affecting anterior instrumentation documentation. CMS determined that Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 22845 should not be used to report integrated instrumentation (plate) with an interbody device, and if additional anterior instrumentation (e.g., plates and screws) is placed with an integrated interbody device, then a 59 modifier should be used. There is sparse literature examining the trends of ACDF without and with additional anterior instrumentation after the 2015 CMS audit. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the trends of single-level subaxial ACDF utilization from 2011 to 2019 to determine whether the 2015 CMS audit influenced the documented usage of additional anterior instrumentation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the commercially available database PearlDiver. Patient records were queried from 2011 to 2019 for single-level subaxial ACDF without (CPT code 22551) and with (CPT codes 22551 + 22845) instrumentation. Cochran-Armitage trend analyses were performed to evaluate the hypothesis that ACDF with additional anterior instrumentation decreased over the given time period.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2019, the total number of single-level ACDFs decreased from 6202 to 4402. From 2011 to 2015, an average of 6240 patients per year underwent single-level subaxial ACDF; of those, 950 patients (15.2%) had ACDF without instrumentation and 5290 patients (84.8%) had ACDF with instrumentation. In 2016, the total number of single-level subaxial ACDFs decreased to 5525, with 1006 patients (18.2%) receiving no instrumentation and 4519 patients (81.8%) receiving instrumentation. From 2017 to 2019, an average of 4283 patients per year underwent a single-level subaxial ACDF; of these, 1280 (29.9%) had no instrumentation and 3003 (70.1%) had instrumentation (all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

From 2015 to 2019, single-level ACDF without instrumentation significantly increased by 91.5% and ACDF with anterior instrumentation significantly decreased by 18.1%. The 2015 CMS audit of interbody cages and anterior instrumentation coding (CPT code 22845) may account for the decreased documentation of anterior instrumentation in the 9-year period. Understanding CMS auditing could help surgeons perceive changes in practice patterns that may lead to a more thorough evaluation of patient outcomes, cost, and overall value.

Establishing a Reference Procedure Length for Anterior Cervical Fusions: The Role for Standards in Surgical Process Improvement

Surgical process improvement strategies are increasingly being applied to specific procedures to improve value. A critical step in any process improvement strategy is the identification of performance benchmarks. Procedure length is a performance benchmark for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures; therefore, we sought to establish reference procedure lengths for 1-level, 2-level, and 3-level ACDFs at both teaching and non-teaching institutions and to describe methods for using this information to advance surgical process improvement initiatives. We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive ACDFs performed at a resident teaching institution (RT) and a non-teaching institution (NT) for all 1-level, 2-level, and 3-level ACDFs. Mean case lengths and patient outcomes were calculated for individual surgeons and institutions. After limiting cases to 1-level, 2-level, and 3-level ACDFs and applying all exclusion criteria, 991 cases at the RT institution and 131 cases at the NT institution (a total of 1122 cases) were available for analysis. The mean (SD) procedure length for 1-level, 2-level, and 3-level ACDFs at the RT versus NT institutions were 121.9 min (36.3 min) and 73.6 min (29.7 min) (p<0.001), 172.7 min (44.8 min) and 112.0 min (43.0 min) (p<0.001), and 218.3 min (54.9 min) and 167.6 min (54.2 min) (p<0.001), respectively. Thirty-day outcomes were the same between institutions, except that the RT institution had a shorter mean hospital length of stay for 2-level ACDFs (1.6 days versus 2.9 days, p=0.001). This study is the first to attempt to establish a standard reference procedure length for 1-level, 2-level, and 3-level ACDFs. These data can guide efforts in surgical process improvement.

Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Standalone Versus Cage and Plate Constructs for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has conventionally been performed using an allograft cage with a plate-and-screw construct. Recently, standalone cages have gained popularity due to theorized decreases in operative time and postoperative dysphagia. Few studies have compared these outcomes. Here, we directly compare the outcomes of plated versus standalone ACDF constructs.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review of patients undergoing ACDF after June 2011 with at least 6 months of follow up was conducted. Clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared between standalone and plated constructs. Multivariate regression analysis of the primary outcome, need for revision surgery, as well as several secondary outcomes, procedure duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay, disposition, and incidence of dysphagia, hoarseness, or surgical site infection, was completed.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patients underwent ACDF and met inclusion-exclusion criteria, with mean follow-up duration of 20 months. Forty-six (14.3%) patients received standalone constructs, while 275 (85.7%) received plated constructs. Fourteen (4.4%) total revisions were necessary, 4 in the standalone group and 10 in the plated group, yielding revision rates of 8.7% and 3.6%, respectively (P = .125). Mean EBL was 98 mL in the standalone group and 63 mL in the plated group (P = .001). Mean procedure duration was 147 minutes in the standalone group and 151 minutes in the plated group (P = .800). Mean hospital stay was 3.6 days in the standalone group and 2.5 days in the plated group (P = .270). There was no significant difference in incidence of dysphagia (P = .700) or hoarseness (P = .700).

CONCLUSIONS

Standalone ACDF demonstrates higher, but not statistically significant, revision rates than plate-and-screw constructs, without the hypothesized decreased incidence of dysphagia or hoarseness and without decreased procedure duration or EBL. Surgeons may consider limiting use of these constructs to cases of adjacent segment disease. Larger studies with longer follow up are necessary to make more definitive conclusions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study will help spine surgeons decide between using standalone or cage-and-plate constructs for ACDF.

Degenerative Cervical Disorder-Stand-alone Cage Versus Cage and Cervical Plate: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes following discectomy and anterior cervical fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disorder performed with stand-alone cages and anterior cervical plates.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in the MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews databases, according to PRISMA guidelines, with no language or date restriction. The review was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42018109180.

RESULTS

Six randomized clinical trials were selected, which evaluated at least one of the objectives of this work, such as pain control, bone consolidation, neurological symptoms, and cervical lordosis, thus satisfying the inclusion criteria. Articles that did not directly compare the 2 surgical techniques were excluded. A total of 309 patients were included and the results showed no significant difference in clinical (visual analogue scale and neck disability index) or radiological (cervical lordosis and fusion) outcome between the 2 groups. The operative time was shorter in the group with stand-alone cages (mean difference = -18.40; 95% CI = [-24.89, -11.92]; P < .66).

CONCLUSION

The stand-alone cages and anterior cervical plate techniques have similar clinical and radiological outcomes. Despite the significantly shorter operative time for one group, other randomized clinical trials are needed to establish conclusive evidence in favor of one of the comparative treatments.

Improved Dysphagia Outcomes in Anchored Spacers Versus Plate-Screw Systems in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes between stand-alone anchored spacers and traditional cages with plate fixation for dysphagia and pseudoarthrosis using data from clinical trials.

METHODS

Our search protocol was added to PROSPERO register and systematic review using PRISMA method was performed. Then, we systematically searched for studies addressing stand-alone anchored spacers in patients who underwent ACDF. Mean Neck Disability Index (NDI), dysphagia incidence % (Dinc%), and Swallowing-Quality of Life (SQOL) scores during preoperative, immediate postoperative and last follow-up visits were extracted. Chi-square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used for statistical comparisons (P ≤ .05).

RESULTS

The initial search generated 506 articles in CENTRAL and 40 articles in MEDLINE. Finally, 14 articles were included. Total number of patients was 1173 (583 anchored stand-alone and 590 plate). Dinc% scores were statistically significantly lower in the stand-alone anchored spacer compared to the plate-screw construct (P ≤ .05). ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in the comparisons of SQOL. On the other hand, NDI scores were statistically significantly lower in baseline of stand-alone anchored spacer and the plate-screw construct compared with both immediate postoperative and last follow-up visits (P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results revealed that the stand-alone anchored spacers were associated with less dysphagia in the immediate and last follow-up.

Locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of locking stand-alone cage (LSC) compared with anterior plate construct (APC) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared LSC with APC in ACDF. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessment of study quality. Data were analyzed with the Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of seven RCTs were included. The results revealed no significant differences between LSC and APC in ACDF regarding the fusion rate, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analogue scale score, neck disability index score, hospital stay, subsidence rate, cervical lordosis, segmental Cobb angle, and disc height. However, LSC was associated with a significantly shorter operation time, less blood loss, lower overall incidence of dysphagia, and lower adjacent-level ossification (ALO) rate compared with APC.

CONCLUSION

In summary, LSC is not only a safe and effective device for ACDF but also has the advantages of significantly reduced operation time, blood loss, overall incidence of dysphagia, and ALO rate over APC. Therefore, LSC is a better alternative than APC for the patients undergoing ACDF procedures.

A Comparison of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Evaluate Dysphagia and Dysphonia After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

OF BACKGROUND DATA

Dysphagia and dysphonia are the most common complications after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF). No consensus system exists currently in the spine literature for the classification of these conditions postoperatively.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) in the assessment of dysphagia when compared with the Bazaz score. A secondary goal was to assess the Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10) scores among patients following ACDF.

METHODS

Patients treated with ACDF (one, two, or three level) for cervical radiculopathy and/or cervical myelopathy at two tertiary hospitals were administered patient-reported outcome metrics preoperatively as well as at multiple time points postoperatively. The metrics administered included the EAT-10, VHI-10, Bazaz, Neck Disbability Index, and EuroQol Five Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D)/visual analog scale.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included in this study. Eighty-nine percentage had a 1-year follow-up, and 100% had a 12-week follow-up. Mean Neck Disbability Index, EQ-5D, and EQ-visual analog scale scores all improved from baseline at both 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Both the EAT-10 and VHI-10 demonstrated excellent internal reliability (α = 0.95 and α = 0.90, respectively). Analysis of variance of EAT-10 and VHI-10 scores by time point demonstrated a statistically significant relationship (P < 0.0001). The EAT-10 and VHI-10 scores were statistically greater on postoperative day 1 than at all other times (Tukey posthoc, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.004, respectively). Across all time points, 176 instances of clinically significant dysphagia (EAT-10 ≥ 3) were noted, 57 (32%) of which were classified as "None" on the Bazaz classification.

CONCLUSIONS

The EAT-10 score is an accurate measure for mild to severe dysphagia and better captured significant dysphagia that would have otherwise been missed when the Bazaz score is used. EAT-10 and VHI-10 are better measures of postoperative dysphagia and dysphonia than the current metrics used in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients.

[Observation of stand-alone MC+polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) Cage in anterior cervical double-level fusion for more than 2 years follow-up]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of stand-alone MC+polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) Cage (single blade type) in anterior cervical double-level fusion for more than 2 years follow-up.

METHODS

A clinical data of 30 patients who were treated with anterior cervical fusion surgery with stand-alone MC+PEEK Cage (single blade type) between January 2013 and December 2016 and followed up for more than 2 years, was retrospectively analyzed. There were 16 males and 14 females, aged from 34 to 72 years with an average of 52.2 years. There were 16 cases of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, 8 cases of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, and 6 cases of traumatic cervical disc herniation. The continuous double segments were C 4, 5, C 5, 6 in 12 cases and C 5, 6, C 6, 7 in 18 cases; and the disease duration ranged from3 days to 24 months (mean, 12 months). Postoperative neck hematoma and wound healing were observed; dysphagia was assessed by Bazaz system; and bone fusion was assessed by Suk method. Before operation, at 1 week after operation, and at last follow-up, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score was used to evaluate the neurological recovery; the cervical X-ray film was performed to record the cervical curvature (C 2-C 7 Cobb angle), the height of the intervertebral space of the fusion segment, and to judge the occurrence of the fusion Cage subsidence.

RESULTS

No complication such as neck hematoma, incision infection, or esophageal fistula was found, primary healing of incisions was obtained in all cases. All patients were followed up 24-72 months (mean, 46 months). Neurological symptoms such as limb numbness and pain gradually disappeared after operation; during the follow-up period, the cervical curvature could be effectively maintained; dysphagia and internal fixation related complications such as displacement of Cages were not found. All patients obtained bony fusion from 3 to 8 months with an average time of 4.3 months. Compared with preoperative ones, the JOA score, intervertebral space height, and Cobb angle of cervical spine were significantly improved at 1 week after operation and at last follow-up ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 1 week after operation and last follow-up ( P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The application of stand-alone MC+PEEK Cage (single card type) in anterior cervical fusion can provide early cervical stability, effectively maintain the physiological curvature of cervical spine and the height of fusion intervertebral space.

The Utility of Cervical Spine Bracing as a Postoperative Adjunct to Single-level Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery

Background Context:

Use of cervical bracing/collar subsequent to anterior cervical spine discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is variable. Outcomes data regarding bracing after ACDF are limited.

Purpose:

The purpose of the study is to study the impact of bracing on short-term outcomes related to safety, quality of care, and direct costs in single-level ACDF.

Study Design/Setting:

This retrospective cohort analysis of all consecutive patients (n = 578) undergoing single-level ACDF with or without bracing from 2013 to 2017 was undertaken.

Methods:

Patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed. Tests of independence (Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test), Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon tests, and logistic regressions were used to assess differences in length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition (home, assisted rehabilitation facility-assisted rehabilitation facility, or skilled nursing facility), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), surgical site infection (SSI), direct cost, readmission within 30 days, and emergency room (ER) visits within 30 days.

Results:

Among the study population, 511 were braced and 67 were not braced. There was no difference in graft type (P = 1.00) or comorbidities (P = 0.06–0.73) such as obesity (P = 0.504), smoking (0.103), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hypertension (P = 0.543), coronary artery disease (P = 0.442), congestive heart failure (P = 0.207), and problem list number (P = 0.661). LOS was extended for the unbraced group (median 34.00 + 112.15 vs. 77.00 + 209.31 h, P < 0.001). There was no difference in readmission (P = 1.000), ER visits (P = 1.000), SSI (P = 1.000), QALY gain (P = 0.437), and direct costs (P = 0.732).

Conclusions:

Bracing following single-level cervical fixation does not alter short-term postoperative course or reduce the risk for early adverse outcomes in a significant manner. The absence of bracing is associated with increased LOS, but cost analyses show no difference in direct costs between the two treatment approaches. Further evaluation of long-term outcomes and fusion rates will be necessary before definitive recommendations regarding bracing utility following single-level ACDF.

Sentinel sign in standalone anterior cervical fusion: Outcomes and fusion rate

Background

The authors aim to demonstrate the feasibility, outcomes and fusion rate of a standalone PEEK cage in the outpatient setting.

Methods

48 consecutive patients undergoing standalone ACDF (S-ACDF) (Group 1) were compared to control group of 49 patients who had ACDF with ACP (Group 2).

Results

Analysis of follow-up at the one year period postoperative outcomes between groups 1 and 2 demonstrated no intergroup statistical significant difference in VAS neck, arm and NDI scores p = 0.414, 0.06 and p = 0.328 respectively.

Conclusion

We conclude that S-ACDF can be safely done in an ambulatory surgery center with satisfactory clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Palsy Is More Frequent After Secondary than After Primary Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Insights from a Registry of 525 Patients

BACKGROUND

Recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy is a common complication after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and usually manifests with dysphagia, hoarseness, and respiratory difficulties. Next to proven risk factors, such as age and multilevel procedures, RLN palsy has been speculated to occur more frequently after secondary ACDF procedures.

METHODS

We analyzed a prospective registry of all consecutive patients undergoing zero-profile ACDF for disc herniation, myelopathy, or stenosis. RLN palsy was defined as persistent patient self-reported dysphagia, hoarseness, or respiratory problems without other identifiable causes. RLN palsy was assessed at scheduled 6-week telephone interviews.

RESULTS

Among 525 included patients, 511 primary and 40 secondary ACDF procedures were performed. Hoarseness was present in 12 (2.2%) cases, whereas dysphagia and respiratory difficulties both occurred in 3 (0.5%) cases. Overall incidence of RLN palsy was 2% after primary procedures and 8% after secondary procedures (P = 0.017). These rates are in line with the peer-reviewed literature, and the difference remained significant after controlling for confounders in a multivariate model (P = 0.033). Other reported risk factors, such as age, sex, surgical time, and multilevel procedures, had no relevant effect (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our data and other published series in the literature, RLN palsy may occur more frequently after secondary ACDF procedures with a clinically relevant effect size. There is a striking lack of uniformity in methods and reporting in research on RLN injury.

Single anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self- locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage: evaluation of pain and health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) constitutes the conventional treatment of cervical disc herniation due to degenerative disc disease (DDD). ACDF with plating presents a variety of complications postoperatively and stand-alone cages are thought to be a promising alternative. The aim of this study was firstly, to analyze prospectively collected data from a sample of patients treated with single ACDF using C-Plus self-locking stand-alone PEEK cage system, without the use of plates or screws, in order to evaluate pain levels of patients, utilizing Neck and Arm Pain scale as an expression of visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondly, we aimed to evaluate health-related quality of life, via the short-form 36 (SF-36) and Neck Disability Index (NDI).

METHODS

Thirty-six patients (19 male and 17 female) with mean age 49.6±7 years old who underwent successful single ACDF using self-locking stand-alone PEEK cage for symptomatic cervical DDD were selected for the study. Neck and Arm pain, as well as SF-36 and NDI were estimated preoperatively and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients underwent preoperative and postoperative clinical, neurological and radiological evaluation.

RESULTS

The clinical and radiological outcomes were satisfactory after a minimum 1-year follow-up. All results were statistically important (P<0.05), excluding improvement in NDI measured between 6 and 12 months. SF-36, Neck Pain, as well as Arm Pain featured gradual and constant improvement during follow-up, with best scores presenting at 12 months after surgery, while NDI reached its best at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, all scores showed improvement postoperatively during the different phases of the follow-up. Subsequently, ACDF using C-Plus cervical cage constitutes an effective method for cervical disc herniation treatment, in terms of postoperative improvement on pain levels and health-related quality of life and a safe alternative to the conventional method of treatment for cervical DDD.