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
Clinical Trial
. 2015 Oct 12:16:290.
doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0746-4.

Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy

ZhiDong Wang  1 , RuoFu Zhu  2 , HuiLin Yang  3 , MinJie Shen  4 , Genlin Wang  5 , Kangwu Chen  6 , Minfeng Gan  7 , Mao Li  8
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy

ZhiDong Wang et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is the golden standard for anterior surgery treating elderly cervical degenerative disease, but the previous implant has some problems such as looseness, translocation, sinking and dysphagia, So Zero-p implant and PCB implant have been developed to decrease the complications.

Methods: The clinical data of 57 patients with single level cervical spondylotic myelopathy were retrospectively analyzed. 27 patients adopting Zero-p interbody fusion cage as implant (Zero-p group) and 30 patients adopting integrated plate cage benezech (PCB) as implant (PCB group) from January 2010 to October 2012. Observe whether are differences between the two groups of patients on operation time, intraoperatve blood loss,Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores before and after operation, intervertebral height, cervical physiological curvature, fusion rate, Postoperative dysphagia rate and complications.

Results: Zero-p group's operation time is 98.2 + 15.2 min and its intraoperatve blood loss is 88.2 + 12.9 ml, both of which are lower than those of PCB group (109.8 + 16.9 min,95.2 + 11.6 ml ), so their differences are statistically significant (P < 0.05). The two groups' JOA scores 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up are significantly higher than those before operation, so the differences are statistically significant (P < 0.05). Coob angle 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up improves obviously compared with before operation, so the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05). The two groups' operation segments intervertebral height 3 months after operation and in the last follow-up improves obviously compared with before operation, so the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05) Zero-p group has one patient with dysphagia after operation and PCB group has four patients with dysphagia after operation, so there is no statistical differences between the two groups on dysphagia rate (P > 0.05, P = 0.415). PCB group has two patients with screws backing out and two patients with hoarseness after operation, the two groups' operation segments all saw bony union in the last follow-up. Zero-p group postoperative complications are lower than PCB group (P < 0.05, P = 0.044).

Conclusions: Zero-profile implant and PCB implant both achieved good clinical effects on the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, the two groups both saw bony union in operation segments, but Zero-profile implant has the advantages of easy operation, short operation time, less intraoperatve blood loss and less complications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sagital T2 magnetic resonance image of a typical study patient showing single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (C4-5)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Postoperative lateral radiographs showing a a patient with C6–7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a Zero-P implant, and b a patient with C6–7 ACDF with a PCB implant
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Lateral radiograph showing C3 and C4 screw loosening and heterotopic ossification formed 5 months after the operation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, Arbatin JJ, Chang KY, Park MS, Shin JH, Ju YS. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(2):218–231. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Samartzis D, Shen FH, Goldberg EJ, An HS. Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation? Spine. 2005;30(15):1756–1761. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000172148.86756.ce. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD, Brislin BT, Leland JM, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2003;28(2):134–139. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200301150-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, Grigorian AA, Lee GP, Robinson JS., Jr Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine. 2007;32(21):2310–2317. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318154c57e. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kasimatis GB, Panagiotopoulos E, Gliatis J, Tyllianakis M, Zouboulis P, Lambiris E. Complications of anterior surgery in cervical spine trauma: an overview. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2009;111(1):18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2008.07.009. - DOI - PubMed