Clinical and radiographic outcomes after index anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with interbody spacer with integrated anchor fixation: a single-surgeon case study.

Q1 Medicine
Journal of spine surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-23 Epub Date: 2024-09-14 DOI:10.21037/jss-24-32
Vishal Venkatraman, Jessica Albanese, Saif E Zaidi, Khoi D Than, Melissa M Erickson, Clifford L Crutcher, C Rory Goodwin, Michael W Groff, Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr
{"title":"Clinical and radiographic outcomes after index anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with interbody spacer with integrated anchor fixation: a single-surgeon case study.","authors":"Vishal Venkatraman, Jessica Albanese, Saif E Zaidi, Khoi D Than, Melissa M Erickson, Clifford L Crutcher, C Rory Goodwin, Michael W Groff, Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr","doi":"10.21037/jss-24-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of plate-cage systems in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been shown to produce fusion and good clinical outcomes though it has been associated with complications such as dysphagia at higher rates than stand-alone implant devices. This study aimed to assess the incidence of dysphagia and radiographic outcomes in adult patients who have undergone ACDF with interbody spacer with integrated anchor fixation (ISa).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent index ACDF with a commercially available ISa by a fellowship-trained spine surgeon between January 2018 and December 2021 were retrospectively included. Patients with less than 90-days follow-up or those who underwent ACDF for trauma, infection, or tumor were excluded. Demographic data, perioperative data, radiographic data and perioperative complications were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-five patients were included for study. Eight patients (17.8%) experienced dysphagia immediately following surgery, which resolved by 6 months post-op, barring 1 patient. Preoperative global and segmental lordosis were 10.4°±9.3° and 6.9°±7.3° respectively. At three months postoperatively, global and segmental lordosis were 8.9°±7.9° (P=0.50) and 7.0°±5.9° (P=0.56) respectively. Fusion rate at six months was 78.3% (18/23) and 100% (18/18) at 1 year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ACDF with ISa is a viable alternative to traditional plate-cage systems. ISa shows lower rates of immediate, 3-month and 6-month dysphagia than traditional plate-cage systems described in the literature. More controlled studies on larger populations will help formulate a concrete conclusion on the advantages of ISa spacers.</p>","PeriodicalId":17131,"journal":{"name":"Journal of spine surgery","volume":"10 3","pages":"416-427"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11467272/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of spine surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-24-32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of plate-cage systems in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been shown to produce fusion and good clinical outcomes though it has been associated with complications such as dysphagia at higher rates than stand-alone implant devices. This study aimed to assess the incidence of dysphagia and radiographic outcomes in adult patients who have undergone ACDF with interbody spacer with integrated anchor fixation (ISa).

Methods: Patients who underwent index ACDF with a commercially available ISa by a fellowship-trained spine surgeon between January 2018 and December 2021 were retrospectively included. Patients with less than 90-days follow-up or those who underwent ACDF for trauma, infection, or tumor were excluded. Demographic data, perioperative data, radiographic data and perioperative complications were collected.

Results: Forty-five patients were included for study. Eight patients (17.8%) experienced dysphagia immediately following surgery, which resolved by 6 months post-op, barring 1 patient. Preoperative global and segmental lordosis were 10.4°±9.3° and 6.9°±7.3° respectively. At three months postoperatively, global and segmental lordosis were 8.9°±7.9° (P=0.50) and 7.0°±5.9° (P=0.56) respectively. Fusion rate at six months was 78.3% (18/23) and 100% (18/18) at 1 year.

Conclusions: ACDF with ISa is a viable alternative to traditional plate-cage systems. ISa shows lower rates of immediate, 3-month and 6-month dysphagia than traditional plate-cage systems described in the literature. More controlled studies on larger populations will help formulate a concrete conclusion on the advantages of ISa spacers.

使用集成锚固定的椎体间间隔器进行指数颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合术后的临床和影像学效果:单个外科医生的病例研究。
背景:在颈椎前路椎间盘切除和融合术(ACDF)中使用板笼系统已被证明可产生融合和良好的临床疗效,但与独立的植入装置相比,它与吞咽困难等并发症的发生率较高。本研究旨在评估使用集成锚固定(ISa)椎间间隔器进行 ACDF 的成年患者吞咽困难的发生率和影像学结果:回顾性纳入2018年1月至2021年12月期间由受过研究培训的脊柱外科医生使用市售ISa进行指数ACDF手术的患者。随访不足 90 天或因创伤、感染或肿瘤接受 ACDF 的患者排除在外。收集了人口统计学数据、围手术期数据、影像学数据和围手术期并发症:研究共纳入 45 例患者。除一名患者外,其他八名患者(17.8%)在术后立即出现吞咽困难,并在术后六个月内缓解。术前整体前凸(10.4°±9.3°)和节段前凸(6.9°±7.3°)。术后三个月,整体和节段前凸分别为 8.9°±7.9°(P=0.50)和 7.0°±5.9°(P=0.56)。6个月的融合率为78.3%(18/23),1年的融合率为100%(18/18):结论:采用ISa的ACDF是传统钢板笼系统的可行替代方案。与文献中描述的传统平板笼系统相比,ISa 显示出更低的即刻、3 个月和 6 个月吞咽困难发生率。对更多人群进行更多的对照研究将有助于就ISa间隔器的优势得出具体结论。
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
Journal of spine surgery
Journal of spine surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
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