Radiographic fusion and subsidence rates for stand-alone cage versus anterior cage-plate construct in ACDF

Q4 Medicine
{"title":"Radiographic fusion and subsidence rates for stand-alone cage versus anterior cage-plate construct in ACDF","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.semss.2024.101105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Retrospective cohort</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span><span>The addition of an anterior cervical plate to a structural allograft during </span>ACDF<span> is thought to provide extra stability and enhance fusion, but it may increase the risk of complications like dysphagia. Stand-alone cages were designed to provide this extra stability without the need for the plate, but these may increase a patient's risk of subsidence, </span></span>cervical dislocation<span>, and cervical kyphosis. The purpose of this study was to assess </span></span>reoperation rates and radiographic outcomes during follow-up longer than 6 months for patients who underwent ACDF with a cage and plate compared to stand-alone cage.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>ACDF cases were retrospectively identified for four fellowship trained spine surgeons from 2016 – 2020 from two academic hospitals. A total of 57 stand-alone structural allograft constructs were matched via propensity scoring with a cohort of 65 patients with plate-secured structural allograft constructs. The primary outcome was reoperation rate within the follow-up period and secondary outcomes included complications, operative characteristics, readmission within 30 days, reoperation within 30 days and within follow-up, and radiographic outcomes. Immediate post-operative radiographs were compared to final follow-up radiographs at least 6 months post-operation to assess for evidence of subsidence, fusion, and change in cervical kyphosis using the Cobb angle technique.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 5 patients (5.26 %) in the stand-alone cohort and 4 patients (3.15 %) in the plate cohort that had cervical reoperation at any time in follow-up (<em>P</em> = 0.83). At final follow-up, 58 patients (92.1 %) in the plate group and 37 patients (75.5 %) in the stand-alone group had radiographic evidence of fusion (<em>P</em> = 0.015). There were 38 patients (77.6 %) in the stand-alone group and 29 patients (46 %) in the plate group with evidence of subsidence (<em>P</em> = 0.0007). Patients with subsidence had a greater change in kyphosis angle at final follow-up and this change was significantly decreased in the plate group compared to the stand-alone group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of anterior cage-plate constructs in ACDF produces higher rates of fusion and lower rates of subsidence than stand-alone cage constructs. Subsidence significantly increases the change in kyphosis angle between post-op and final follow-up, and the presence of a spanning plate significantly reduces this angle change compared to stand-alone cages. There were no statistically significant differences in reoperation rates, regardless of radiographic evidence of subsidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39884,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Spine Surgery","volume":"36 3","pages":"Article 101105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040738324000285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective cohort

Background

The addition of an anterior cervical plate to a structural allograft during ACDF is thought to provide extra stability and enhance fusion, but it may increase the risk of complications like dysphagia. Stand-alone cages were designed to provide this extra stability without the need for the plate, but these may increase a patient's risk of subsidence, cervical dislocation, and cervical kyphosis. The purpose of this study was to assess reoperation rates and radiographic outcomes during follow-up longer than 6 months for patients who underwent ACDF with a cage and plate compared to stand-alone cage.

Methods

ACDF cases were retrospectively identified for four fellowship trained spine surgeons from 2016 – 2020 from two academic hospitals. A total of 57 stand-alone structural allograft constructs were matched via propensity scoring with a cohort of 65 patients with plate-secured structural allograft constructs. The primary outcome was reoperation rate within the follow-up period and secondary outcomes included complications, operative characteristics, readmission within 30 days, reoperation within 30 days and within follow-up, and radiographic outcomes. Immediate post-operative radiographs were compared to final follow-up radiographs at least 6 months post-operation to assess for evidence of subsidence, fusion, and change in cervical kyphosis using the Cobb angle technique.

Results

There were 5 patients (5.26 %) in the stand-alone cohort and 4 patients (3.15 %) in the plate cohort that had cervical reoperation at any time in follow-up (P = 0.83). At final follow-up, 58 patients (92.1 %) in the plate group and 37 patients (75.5 %) in the stand-alone group had radiographic evidence of fusion (P = 0.015). There were 38 patients (77.6 %) in the stand-alone group and 29 patients (46 %) in the plate group with evidence of subsidence (P = 0.0007). Patients with subsidence had a greater change in kyphosis angle at final follow-up and this change was significantly decreased in the plate group compared to the stand-alone group.

Conclusion

The use of anterior cage-plate constructs in ACDF produces higher rates of fusion and lower rates of subsidence than stand-alone cage constructs. Subsidence significantly increases the change in kyphosis angle between post-op and final follow-up, and the presence of a spanning plate significantly reduces this angle change compared to stand-alone cages. There were no statistically significant differences in reoperation rates, regardless of radiographic evidence of subsidence.

在 ACDF 中使用独立支架与前支架板结构的放射学融合率和下沉率
研究设计回顾性队列背景在 ACDF 过程中,在结构性同种异体移植物上添加颈椎前路钢板被认为可以提供额外的稳定性并增强融合效果,但这可能会增加吞咽困难等并发症的风险。设计独立的颈椎固定架是为了在不需要钢板的情况下提供额外的稳定性,但这可能会增加患者发生下沉、颈椎脱位和颈椎后凸的风险。本研究的目的是评估与独立骨架相比,接受带骨架和钢板 ACDF 的患者在超过 6 个月的随访期间的再手术率和影像学结果。方法回顾性地确定了两家学术医院的四位接受过研究员培训的脊柱外科医生在 2016-2020 年期间的 ACDF 病例。通过倾向评分法将57例独立结构异体移植与65例钢板固定结构异体移植患者进行匹配。主要结果是随访期间的再手术率,次要结果包括并发症、手术特点、30 天内再入院、30 天内和随访期间的再手术以及放射学结果。将术后即刻X光片与术后至少6个月的最终随访X光片进行比较,以评估是否有下沉、融合的迹象,并使用Cobb角技术评估颈椎畸形的变化。结果独立队列中有5名患者(5.26%)和平板队列中有4名患者(3.15%)在随访期间的任何时间进行了颈椎再手术(P = 0.83)。在最后的随访中,钢板组中有 58 名患者(92.1%)和独立组中有 37 名患者(75.5%)有融合的影像学证据(P = 0.015)。独立组中有 38 名患者(77.6%)和钢板组中有 29 名患者(46%)有下沉迹象(P = 0.0007)。最后随访时,有下沉的患者椎体后凸角度变化较大,与独立组相比,钢板组的这一变化显著减小。 结论:与独立的笼式结构相比,在 ACDF 中使用前方笼式钢板结构可产生更高的融合率和更低的下沉率。下沉会明显增加术后到最终随访期间的椎体后凸角度变化,而与独立保持架相比,跨椎板的存在会明显减少这种角度变化。无论是否有放射学证据显示有下沉,再次手术率在统计学上都没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Seminars in Spine Surgery
Seminars in Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
2 days
期刊介绍: Seminars in Spine Surgery is a continuing source of current, clinical information for practicing surgeons. Under the direction of a specially selected guest editor, each issue addresses a single topic in the management and care of patients. Topics covered in each issue include basic anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, management options and follow-up of the condition under consideration. The journal also features "Spinescope," a special section providing summaries of articles from other journals that are of relevance to the understanding of ongoing research related to the treatment of spinal disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信