Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD)

Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional... AbstractComparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) or a conventional cage-plate construct (CPC) for treating noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).Overall, 46 patients with 2 noncontiguous segments of CDDD, treated with ACDF from January 2011 to October 2015, were included in this study. ROI-C was used in 22 patients (group A) and CPC in 24 patients (group B). The clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared pre- and postoperatively. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months after surgery.No significant difference was found in fusion rate, cervical curvature, height of fused segment (FSDH), intraoperative blood loss, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores between the 2 groups. Group A had a shorter operation time and significantly lower incidence of dysphagia (3 and 24 months postoperatively) than group B (P < .001 and P < .05, respectively). Moreover, group A had a higher loss of FSDH than group B, but with no difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). Two cages developed subsidence in group A (4.5%) and 2 adjacent levels developed degeneration in group B (2,8%).ACDF with ROI-C device was superior to CPC for noncontiguous bilevel of CDDD because it avoided postoperative dysphagia and required a shorter operation time. Moreover, the clinical outcomes were comparable. Prospective trials with larger samples and longer follow-up are required to confirm the results. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Medicine Wolters Kluwer Health

Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters_kluwer/comparison-of-the-clinical-effects-of-zero-profile-anchored-spacer-roi-0GNR90OJJt
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
ISSN
0025-7974
eISSN
1536-5964
D.O.I.
10.1097/MD.0000000000009808
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractComparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) or a conventional cage-plate construct (CPC) for treating noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).Overall, 46 patients with 2 noncontiguous segments of CDDD, treated with ACDF from January 2011 to October 2015, were included in this study. ROI-C was used in 22 patients (group A) and CPC in 24 patients (group B). The clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared pre- and postoperatively. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months after surgery.No significant difference was found in fusion rate, cervical curvature, height of fused segment (FSDH), intraoperative blood loss, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores between the 2 groups. Group A had a shorter operation time and significantly lower incidence of dysphagia (3 and 24 months postoperatively) than group B (P < .001 and P < .05, respectively). Moreover, group A had a higher loss of FSDH than group B, but with no difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). Two cages developed subsidence in group A (4.5%) and 2 adjacent levels developed degeneration in group B (2,8%).ACDF with ROI-C device was superior to CPC for noncontiguous bilevel of CDDD because it avoided postoperative dysphagia and required a shorter operation time. Moreover, the clinical outcomes were comparable. Prospective trials with larger samples and longer follow-up are required to confirm the results.

Journal

MedicineWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Feb 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off