Thorough Comparative Analysis of Stand-Alone Cage and Anterior Cervical Plate for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of fusion, arthroplasty and hybrid surgery outcomes in patients with two-level cervical disc disease

OBJECTIVES

The study aims to explore the management of two-level cervical disc disease and to compare outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), and hybrid surgery (HS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between December 2011 and December 2021, a total of 120 patients (76 males, 44 females; mean age: 44.8±8.1 years; range, 18 to 68 years) who were diagnosed as two-level cervical disc disease and underwent anterior cervical surgery were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were randomly divided into three groups as ACDF, CDA, and HS each consisting of 40 patients. The Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), clinical and radiological findings, and range of motion (ROM) data were evaluated.

RESULTS

All of the groups showed a significant improvement according to clinical and radiological outcomes (p=0.01). The mean follow-up was 27.5±6.1 months for ACDF, 20.0±4.7 months for CDA, and 21.1±5.0 months for HS, showing consistency in monitoring post-surgery outcomes. The mean postoperative NDI scores were 13.4±5.6, 14.8±5.2 and 15.0±5.5 in the ACDF, CDA and HS groups, respectively (p=0.056). The mean postoperative ROM values were 20.82±5.66, 32.45±11.21 and 27.18±10.89, respectively (p=0.045).

CONCLUSION

All three surgical techniques, ACDF, CDA, and HS, are safe and successful in the treatment of two-level cervical disc disease. However, HS and CDA may be more preferable over ACDF attributed to their motion-preserving benefits and effectively combining fusion and motion preservation techniques, with comparable clinical and radiological outcomes.

Do modic changes affect the fusion rate in spinal interbody fusion surgery? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the fusion rates of spinal interbody fusion in patients with modic changes (MCs).

METHODS

This meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the project number was CRD42024538023. This network meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 28, 2024 for potential studies. STATA 13.0 and Review Manager 5.3 were used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 1162 patients or segments assigned to four groups according to MCs grade were identified. The fusion rate in the non-modic changes (NMCs) was significantly greater than that in the MCs at the 3-month (p = 0.0001) and 6-month (p = 0.002) follow-ups. No significant difference was detected in the fusion rate at 12-month (p = 0.34) and final follow-ups (p = 0.41). No significant difference was found in cervical fusion (p = 0.88) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (p = 0.51). The fusion rate of NMCs was significantly greater than that of MCs in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (p < 0.00001). No significant differences were identified among the four groups in the overall comparison, cervical fusion or TLIF subgroups. The fusion rate in the NMCs was significantly greater than that in the MCs-2 and MCs-3 in the PLIF.

CONCLUSION

MCs decreased the fusion rate at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. MCs-2 and MCs-3 decrease the fusion rate in PLIF.

Stand-Alone Anchored Spacer vs Anterior Plate Construct in the Management of Adjacent Segment Disease after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of surgically treated adjacent segment disease (ASDis) following ACDF with either anterior plate construct (APC) or stand-alone anchored spacers (SAAS).

METHOD

Multiple databases were searched until December 2022 for pertinent studies. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life outcomes [JOA, NDI, and VAS], whereas, the secondary outcomes included operative characteristics [estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time (OT)], radiological outcomes [C2-C7 Cobb angle, disc height index (DHI) changes, fusion rate], and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies were included, comprising 210 patients who had been surgically treated for cervical ASDis. Among them, 113 received APC, and 97 received SAAS. Postoperative dysphagia was significantly higher in the APC group [47% vs 11%, OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 3.1-18.9, P < .05]. Similarly, operative time and blood loss were higher in the APC group compared to the SAAS group; [MD = 16.96, 95% CI = 7.87-26.06, P < .05] and [MD = 5.22, 95% CI = .35 - 10.09, P < .05], respectively. However, there was no difference in the rate of prolonged dysphagia and clinical outcomes in terms of JOA, NDI, and VAS. Furthermore, there was no difference in the radiological parameters including the C2-7 Cobb angle and DHI as well as the fusion rate.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that both surgical techniques (APC and SAAS) are effective in treating ASDis. However, with low certainty of the evidence, considering patients are at high risk of dysphagia following revision cervical spine surgery SAAS may be the preferred choice.

Zero-profile anchored spacer versus conventional plate-cage construct in bilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Zero-profile anchored spacers (ZAS) and plate-cage constructs (PCC) are currently employed when performing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of both devices in bilevel ACDF remain controversial. The goal of our meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy and security among ZAS and PCC in bilevel ACDF.

METHODS

A search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify researches that compared ZAS with PCC for bilevel ACDF. Stata MP 17.0 software was used for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nine researches with a total of 580 patients were involved. In comparison to PCC, ZAS significantly reduced intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia rates. No significant differences were found concerning operation time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, the incidence of adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD) and implant sinking rates at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Compared to PCC, ZAS achieved similar efficacy and security in bilevel ACDF with respect to operative time, JOA score, NDI score, cervical Cobb angle, fusion rates, implant sinking rates and ASD rates at final follow-up. It is worth noting that ZAS offered considerable benefits over conventional PCC for the reduction of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative dysphagia. Therefore, for patients requiring bilevel ACDF, ZAS seems superior to PCC. Given the limitations of our study, larger prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to establish reliable proof to consolidate our conclusions.

Self-locking stand-alone cage versus cage-plate fixation in monosegmental anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a minimum 2-year follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, self-locking stand-alone cages (SSC) are commonly applied in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), as are cage-plate constructs (CPC). However, it remains controversial concerning the long-term effectiveness of both apparatuses. Our purpose is to compare long-term effectiveness of SSC with CPC in monosegmental ACDF.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were queried to identify studies comparing SSC versus CPC in monosegmental ACDF. The meta-analysis was carried out with the use of the Stata MP 17.0 software package.

RESULTS

Ten trials with 979 patients were included. Compared to CPC, SSC significantly reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospitalisation, cervical Cobb angle at final follow-up, 1-month postoperative dysphagia rate, and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) at final follow-up. No significant difference was found regarding 1-month postoperative cervical Cobb angle, JOA scores, NDI scores, fusion rate and cage subsidence rate at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Both devices achieved similar long-term effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF regarding JOA scores, NDI scores, fusion rate and cage subsidence rate. SSC had significant advantages over CPC in reducing surgical duration, intraoperative bleeding, duration of hospitalisation, as well as rates of dysphagia and ASD after surgery. Therefore, SSC is a better option than CPC in monosegmental ACDF. However, SSC is inferior to CPC in maintaining cervical curvature at long-term follow-up. Whether radiological changes affect clinical symptoms needs confirmation in trials with longer follow-up.

Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy as a Surgical Strategy for the Treatment of Cervical Myelopathy: Complications and Pitfalls

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study has been aimed at evaluating the incidence of complications after vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) and analyzing some cases. Furthermore, the complications of VBSO were compared with those of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).

METHODS

This study included 154 patients who underwent VBSO (n = 109) or ACCF (n = 45) for cervical myelopathy and were followed up for > 2 years. Surgical complications, clinical and radiological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The most common surgical complications after VBSO were dysphagia (n = 8, 7.3%) and significant subsidence (n = 6, 5.5%). There were 5 cases of C5 palsy (4.6%), followed by dysphonia (n = 4, 3.7%), implant failure (n = 3, 2.8%), pseudoarthrosis (n = 3, 2.8%), dural tears (n = 2, 1.8%), and reoperation (n = 2, 1.8%). C5 palsy and dysphagia did not require additional treatment and spontaneously resolved. The rates of reoperation (VBSO, 1.8%; ACCF, 11.1%; p = 0.02) and subsidence (VBSO, 5.5%; ACCF, 40%; p < 0.01) were significantly lower in VBSO than in ACCF. VBSO restored more C2-7 lordosis (VBSO, 13.9° ± 7.5°; ACCF, 10.1° ± 8.0°; p = 0.02) and segmental lordosis (VBSO, 15.7° ± 7.1°; ACCF, 6.6° ± 10.2°; p < 0.01) than ACCF. The clinical outcomes did not significantly differ between both groups.

CONCLUSION

VBSO has advantages over ACCF in terms of low rate of surgical complications related to reoperation and significant subsidence. However, dural tears may still occur despite the lessened need for ossified posterior longitudinal ligament lesion manipulation in VBSO; hence, caution is warranted.

A Retrospective Evaluation and Review of Radiographic Outcomes for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) Procedures: Northern Ireland's Experience

Introduction Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) is the gold standard treatment for symptomatic cervical spondylosis refractory to analgesic medical management. Currently, there are numerous approaches and devices used; however, there is no single implant that is preferred for this procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate the radiological outcomes of ACDF procedures performed in the regional spinal surgery centre in Northern Ireland. The results of this study will aid surgical decision-making, specifically with regard to the choice of implant. The implants that will be assessed in this study are the stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage (Cage) and the Zero-profile augmented screw implant (Z-P). Methods A total of 420 ACDF cases were reviewed retrospectively. Following exclusion and inclusion criteria, 233 cases were reviewed. In the Z-P group, there were 117 patients, with 116 in the Cage group. Radiographic assessment was carried out at the pre-operative stage, day one post-operation, and follow-up (> three months). Measured parameters included segmental disc height, segmental Cobb angle, and spondylolisthesis displacement distance. Results Patient characteristic features showed no significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05) and no significant difference in mean follow-up time (p=0.146). The Z-P implant was superior in increasing and maintaining disc height post-operatively (+0.4±0.94mm, 5.20±0.66mm) compared to the Cage (+0.1±1.00mm, 4.40±0.95mm) (p<0.001). Z-P was also more successful in restoring and maintaining cervical lordosis in comparison to the Cage group, as it had a significantly smaller kyphosis incidence (0.85% vs. 34.5%) at follow-up (p<0.001). Conclusions Results of this study show a more advantageous outcome in the Zero-profile group as it restores and maintains both disc height and cervical lordosis; it is also more successful in treating spondylolisthesis. This study advocates cautious endorsement of the use of the Zero-profile implant in ACDF procedures for symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Is anterior cervical plating necessary for cage constructs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical degenerative disorders? Evidence-based on the systematic overview of meta-analyses

Study design

Systematic review of meta-analyses.

Objective

To perform a systematic review of meta-analyses to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone cage (SAC) and anterior cervical cage-plate constructs (ACCPC).

Methods

The systematic overview was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and reported as per Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions following the methodology described in reporting Overview of reviews.

Results

Based on the available level-1 evidence, SAC offers significantly better benefits over ACCPC, in terms of shorter operative time (p < 0.00001; I² = 0%), lower blood loss (p = 0.01; I² = 0%), lesser rates of post-operative dysphagia (p = 0.02; I² = 0%), reduced overall expenditure (p = 0.001) and long-term adjacent segment degeneration (ASD)/anterior longitudinal ligament ossification (ALO; p = 0.0003; I² = 0%). There is no significant difference between the two constructs with regard to fusion rates, functional outcome scores, follow-up radiological sagittal alignment parameters or cage subsidence.

Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, SAC constructs in ACDF reduce blood loss, decreases operative time, mitigates post-operative dysphagia, lessens hospital-related expenditure and minimises long-term ASD rates.