Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jun 1;38(13):E792-7.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182913400.

Anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine with Zero-P spacer: prospective comparative study-clinical and radiological results at a minimum 2 years after surgery

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine with Zero-P spacer: prospective comparative study-clinical and radiological results at a minimum 2 years after surgery

Petr Vanek et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). .

Abstract

Study design: A prospective study.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological efficacy of anterior cervical microdiscectomy and fusion done by the newly designed low-profile interbody spacer in cases of symptomatic cervical spine spondylosis.

Summary of background data: There are basically 2 ways to provide interbody fusion in the degenerative cervical spine; the first is by way of an unanchored "stand-alone" bone graft or cage, and the second is with bone graft or a cage anchored with a plate. Both concepts have their own benefits as well as potential drawbacks. Low-profile angle-stable spacer Zero-P is an implant that can potentially limit the drawbacks of both these procedures. METHODS.: Prospective study collecting clinical and radiological data of 77 patients undergoing anterior cervical interbody fusion of 1 or 2 motion segments from C3-C7 was performed. Zero-P spacer was used in 44 patients (55 segments) and in 33 cases (41 segments), stabilization was done using interbody spacer and dynamic anterior cervical plate. Patients were followed a minimum of 2 years after surgery.

Results: There was no significant difference in neck disability index values, presence of dysphagia (P = 0.308), and Cobb C values during follow-up (P = 0.051) between both groups. A significant difference in the first 2 values of Cobb S was found (P < 0.001), but the next course of Cobb S changes showed no difference in either group. No difference was found in the radiological stability during follow-up, and no revision surgery was done.

Conclusion: The results of this study confirm biomechanical assumptions associated with the Zero-P spacer. Implantation of this new cage results in setting required biomechanical conditions in the treated segment that are comparable with those when the segment is treated with a dynamic plate. However, the potential of the mentioned implant to reduce the incidence of postoperative dysphagia was not proven on this sample of patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Should Dynamic Cervical Plates be Used With Interbody Cages?
    Duart-Clemente JM, Álvarez-Galovich L, Tomé F, Piñera-Parrilla ÁR, Duart-Clemente J. Duart-Clemente JM, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Nov;40(21):E1167. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001172. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015. PMID: 26502103 No abstract available.

Publication types

MeSH terms