Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences 2023; 09(01): 012-017
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743447
Original Article

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion—Can a Standalone Zero-Profile Titanium Cage a Better Alternative Option to Traditional Cervical Plate-Titanium Cage Combination?: A Prospective Observational Study

Chandrashekhar Gaike 
1   Department of Orthopedics, MGM Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
,
Girish Gadekar
1   Department of Orthopedics, MGM Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
,
Shraddha Kardile
2   Clinical Research Department (Pharmacology), MGM Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
,
Mangesh Panat
1   Department of Orthopedics, MGM Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Anterior cervical plating in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has inherent drawbacks like plate loosening, screw pullout, breakage, trachea-esophageal irritation and fistula, increased operation time, and increased duration of hospital stay. Due to low profile and in-built screw fixation slots, Zero-profile (Zero-P) cages are becoming popular among spine surgeons since they are supposed to minimize drawbacks that are associated with anterior cervical plates.

Aims In our study, we evaluated two different fixation methods: (1) anterior cervical plate plus titanium cage and (2) zero-P titanium cages with respect to duration of surgery, length of hospitalization, rate of fusion, and postoperative complications.

Materials and Methods This was a comparative prospective observational study with a sample size of 30 patients. Patients with cervical compressive disease (radiculopathy/myelopathy or combined symptoms) who require ACDF and fit in inclusion criteria were divided in two groups: group A—anterior cervical plate and titanium cage and group B—Zero-P titanium.

Statistical Analysis Used Mann–Whitney U test was used for the duration of stay, and Student's t-test was used for the duration of surgery.

Results C4–5 level was most commonly involved followed by C5–C6 level and C3–C4 level. The mean duration of surgery in group A was 141.3 minutes and group B was 111.3 minutes. The mean duration of stay in group A was 4.40 days and group B was 2.0 days. Two patients in group A and one patient in group B had dysphagia. One each in both groups had developed hoarseness of voice after surgery. Two patients in group A and one in group B had persistent donor site pain till 6 weeks to 2 months. One patient each of both groups had cage subsidence. Almost all patients in both groups achieved fusion by 6 months.

Conclusion ACDF with standalone Zero-P cage is equally good. Duration of surgery and duration of stay were shorter in standalone Zero-P cage group. We feel it is good for patients and healthcare since it reduces overall financial burden.

Keywords

anterior cervical discectomy and fusion - Zero-P cage - anterior cervical plate


Publication History

Article published online:
28 April 2022

© 2022. Medical and Surgical Update Society. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ. et al; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine 2008; 33 (4, Suppl): S39-S51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mäkelä M, Heliövaara M, Sievers K, Impivaara O, Knekt P, Aromaa A. Prevalence, determinants, and consequences of chronic neck pain in Finland. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 134 (11) 1356-1367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain 1994; 117 (Pt 2): 325-335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Salemi G, Savettieri G, Meneghini F. et al. Prevalence of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a door-to-door survey in a Sicilian municipality. Acta Neurol Scand 1996; 93 (2-3): 184-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Irvine DH, Foster JB, Newell DJ, Klukvin BN. Prevalence of cervical spondylosis in general practice. Lancet 1965; 1 (7395): 1089-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Islam MA, Islam MA, Habib MA, Sakeb N. Anterior cervical discectomy, fusion and stabilization by plate and screw–early experience. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2012; 38 (02) 62-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chesnut RM, Abitbol JJ, Garfin SR. Surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. Indication, techniques, and results. Orthop Clin North Am 1992; 23 (03) 461-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lied B, Roenning PA, Sundseth J, Helseth E. Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion in patients with cervical disc degeneration: a prospective study of 258 patients. BMC Surg 2010; 10: 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Burkhardt JK, Mannion AF, Marbacher S, Kleinstück FS, Jeszenszky D, Porchet F. The influence of cervical plate fixation with either autologous bone or cage insertion on radiographic and patient-rated outcomes after two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (01) 113-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zhou J, Xia Q, Dong J. et al. Comparison of stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages and iliac crest autografts for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc diseases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011; 153 (01) 115-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thomé C, Krauss JK, Zevgaridis D. A prospective clinical comparison of rectangular titanium cages and iliac crest autografts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Neurosurg Rev 2004; 27 (01) 34-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Oha F, Ishida T, Yamane S. Pitfalls of anterior cervical fusion using titanium mesh and local autograft. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16 (06) 513-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kepler CK, Rawlins BA. Mesh cage reconstruction with autologous cancellous graft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23 (05) 328-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Majd ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT. Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine 1999; 24 (15) 1604-1610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Goz V, Buser Z, D'Oro A. et al. Complications and risk factors using structural allograft versus synthetic cage: analysis 17 783 anterior cervical discectomy and fusions using a national registry. Global Spine J 2019; 9 (04) 388-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD. et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (02) 134-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar