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
. 2022 Sep 30;27(1):189.
doi: 10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w.

Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Jun Zhang #  1   2 , Shanxi Wang #  1 , Xiangyu Tang  3 , Wei Xiong  1 , Hua Wu  1 , Chaoxu Liu  4 , Feng Li  5
Affiliations

Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Jun Zhang et al. Eur J Med Res. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Methods: Between January 2016 and November 2018, a total of 68 patients with degenerative cervical spondylosis who underwent single-level ACDF were evaluated in this retrospective study. Thirty-five patients were treated with the zero-profile anchored cage (Zero-P group), and 33 patients were treated with the traditional cage-plate fixation (Cage group). The two groups were compared in reference to clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters.

Results: The mean operation time in the Zero-P group was significantly shorter than that in the Cage group. The incidence of postoperative dysphagia in the Cage group was higher than that in the Zero-P group at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. No bony spurs were found in the Zero-P group, whereas 5 patients in the Cage group developed bony spurs. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the JOA scores, VAS scores, NDI scores, C2-7 Cobb angles, segmental Cobb angles, total interbody height or fusion rates at 3 months or 12 months postoperatively.

Conclusion: In this study, both the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation were demonstrated to be effective and safe strategies. Given the lower incidence of dysphagia and degenerative changes, zero-profile anchored cage is a good option.

Keywords: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Cage; Dysphagia; Zero-profile.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Lateral X-rays of the cervical vertebra. Cobb C: the Cobb angle between the lines perpendicular to the upper end plate of the C2 vertebral body and the lower end plate of the C7 vertebral body. Cobb S: the angle between a line perpendicular to the superior border of the upper affected vertebral body and the inferior border of the lower affected vertebral body. TIH: total interbody height
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A and C Lateral X-ray image of the cervical spine at 3 months postoperatively. B and D Lateral X-ray images of the cervical spine at 12 months postoperatively. A new anterior bony spur has formed from the tip of the plate to the upper adjacent level, as shown in 2D
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, et al. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2013;38(22):21–36. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f2c3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yamazaki T, Yanaka K, Sato H, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting outcome with special reference to age differences. Neurosurgery. 2003;53(1):122–126. - PubMed
    1. Petr V, Ondrej B, Patricia D, et al. 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. Spine. 2013;38(13):792–797. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182913400. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Song KJ, Lee K, Taghavi CE, et al. The efficacy of plate construct augmentation versus cage alone in anterior cervical fusion. Spine. 2009;34(26):2886–2892. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b64f2c. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bazaz R, Lee MJ, Yoo JU. Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study. Spine. 2002;27(22):2453–2458. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00007. - DOI - PubMed