J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2015; 76(04): 268-273
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1389091
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Efficacy of Zero-Profile Implant in Anterior Fusion to Treat Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease: Comparison with Techniques Using Bone Graft and Anterior Plating

Han Chang
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea
Dong-Hoon Baek
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University, Busan, Republic of Korea
Byung-Wan Choi
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University, Busan, Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 March 2013

23 May 2014

Publication Date:
08 May 2015 (online)


Background The efficacy of anterior fusion using zero-profile implant (Zero-P) in the surgical treatment of degenerative cervical disease was investigated through radiographic and clinical comparisons with existing treatments using autograft or allograft and anterior plating.

Material and Methods A total of 130 patients who underwent anterior decompression and fusion for degenerative cervical spine disease with a follow-up of at least 1 year were analyzed retrospectively. The cases were divided into three groups: autograft and plate (38 cases, group A), allograft and plate (44 cases, group B), and Zero-P (48 cases, group C). Maintenance of lordosis, extent of subsidence, and fusion were evaluated radiologically and compared among preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up time points. In addition, changes in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Neurologic Disability Index (NDI) scores and the presence of complications were evaluated for clinical analysis.

Results Operation time was significantly less in group C (p = 0.007, 0.002). Maintenance of entire and segmental lordosis after surgery was better in groups A and B compared with group C (p = 0.002, 0.001); however, the extent of loss of lordosis from the surgery to the final follow-up did not show any significant differences. Regarding the extent of subsidence, the increase of height between the vertebral bodies after the surgery was 3.10, 2.89, and 2.68 mm in group A, group B, and group C, respectively (p = 0.14), and changed to − 1.27, − 2.41, and − 1.2 mm at the final follow-up (p = 0.012). VAS and NDI scores were improved from 7.2 to 3 and 34 to 12, respectively, but there were no significant differences. Nonunion occurred in two cases in both group B and group C. In terms of clinical complications, two cases of persistent donor site pain were found in group A; one case of persistent dysphagia was found in both group A and group B.

Conclusion Anterior cervical fusion using Zero-P has a shorter operation time and less subsidence compared with conventional surgical techniques. Thus it can be considered a useful technique for the surgical treatment of degenerative cervical disease.

  • References

  • 1 Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958; 40-A (3) 607-624
  • 2 Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS. Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A statistical evaluation. Spine 1995; 20 (9) 1055-1060
  • 3 Deutsch H, Haid R, Rodts Jr G, Mummaneni PV. The decision-making process: allograft versus autograft. Neurosurgery 2007; 60 (Suppl. 01) S98-S102
  • 4 Bolesta MJ, Rechtine II GR, Chrin AM. Three- and four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation: a prospective study. Spine 2000; 25 (16) 2040-2044 ; discussion 2045–2046
  • 5 Fraser JF, Härtl R. Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6 (4) 298-303
  • 6 Yue WM, Brodner W, Highland TR. Persistent swallowing and voice problems after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 2005; 14 (7) 677-682
  • 7 Hofstetter CC, Kesavabhotla K, Boockvar JA. Zero-profile anchored spacer reduces rate of dysphagia compared to ACDF with anterior plating. J Spinal Disord Tech 2013; ; November 7 ( Epub ahead of print)
  • 8 Park JB, Cho YS, Riew KD. Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (3) 558-563
  • 9 Scholz M, Reyes PM, Schleicher P , et al. A new stand-alone cervical anterior interbody fusion device: biomechanical comparison with established anterior cervical fixation devices. Spine 2009; 34 (2) 156-160
  • 10 Scholz M, Schnake KJ, Pingel A, Hoffmann R, Kandziora F. A new zero-profile implant for stand-alone anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (3) 666-673
  • 11 Wang ZD, Zhu RF, Yang HL , et al. The application of a zero-profile implant in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21 (3) 462-466
  • 12 Qi M, Chen H, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Liang L, Yuan W. The use of a zero-profile device compared with an anterior plate and cage in the treatment of patients with symptomatic cervical spondylosis: a preliminary clinical investigation. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (4) 543-547
  • 13 Vanek P, Bradac O, Delacy P, Lacman J, Benes V. 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) E792-E797
  • 14 Kandziora F, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M , et al. Treatment of traumatic cervical spine instability with interbody fusion cages: a prospective controlled study with a 2-year follow-up. Injury 2005; 36 (Suppl. 02) B27-B35
  • 15 Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine 2000; 25 (20) 2646-2654 ; discussion 2655
  • 16 Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (5) 513-516
  • 17 Song KJ, Taghavi CE, Lee KB, Song JH, Eun JP. The efficacy of plate construct augmentation versus cage alone in anterior cervical fusion. Spine 2009; 34 (26) 2886-2892
  • 18 An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J. Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. A prospective multicenter study. Spine 1995; 20 (20) 2211-2216
  • 19 Suchomel P, Barsa P, Buchvald P, Svobodnik A, Vanickova E. Autologous versus allogenic bone grafts in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective study with respect to bone union pattern. Eur Spine J 2004; 13 (6) 510-515
  • 20 Ghiselli G, Wharton N, Hipp JA, Wong DA, Jatana S. Prospective analysis of imaging prediction of pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: computed tomography versus flexion-extension motion analysis with intraoperative correlation. Spine 2011; 36 (6) 463-468
  • 21 Cannada LK, Scherping SC, Yoo JU, Jones PK, Emery SE. Pseudoarthrosis of the cervical spine: a comparison of radiographic diagnostic measures. Spine 2003; 28 (1) 46-51
  • 22 Riley III LH, Skolasky RL, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR, Heller JG. Dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion: prevalence and risk factors from a longitudinal cohort study. Spine 2005; 30 (22) 2564-2569
  • 23 Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH , et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 2002; 27 (22) 2431-2434
  • 24 Park DH, Ramakrishnan P, Cho TH , et al. Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7 (3) 336-340