A retrospective comparative analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone titanium cage versus cage and plate fixation in two-level cervical disc herniation.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Cem Sever, Bekir Eray Kilinc, Ahmet Onur Akpolat, Tayfun Bozkaya, Akif Kurtan, Abdulhamit Misir
{"title":"A retrospective comparative analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone titanium cage versus cage and plate fixation in two-level cervical disc herniation.","authors":"Cem Sever, Bekir Eray Kilinc, Ahmet Onur Akpolat, Tayfun Bozkaya, Akif Kurtan, Abdulhamit Misir","doi":"10.1186/s13018-025-05654-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to compare the outcomes of two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures using stand-alone cages versus cage and plate fixation in patients diagnosed with cervical disc herniation (CDH).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis included 60 patients who underwent two-level ACDF procedures. Patients were divided into two groups: one treated with stand-alone cages and the other with cage and plate fixation. Data on surgical duration, blood loss, fusion stability, and complication rates were collected. Clinical outcomes, including neck pain and functional status, were assessed using standard scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Plate fixation provided superior fusion stability but was associated with longer surgery durations, higher intraoperative blood loss, and increased complication rates. Stand-alone cages reduced intraoperative trauma but demonstrated higher subsidence rates and prolonged fusion times. Both techniques resulted in significant improvements in neck pain and disability scores.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While both approaches are effective for managing cervical disc herniation, each has distinct advantages and limitations. Surgical technique selection should be individualized, considering patient-specific anatomical factors, functional demands, and the risk-benefit profile of each approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":"20 1","pages":"256"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11892192/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-025-05654-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the outcomes of two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures using stand-alone cages versus cage and plate fixation in patients diagnosed with cervical disc herniation (CDH).

Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis included 60 patients who underwent two-level ACDF procedures. Patients were divided into two groups: one treated with stand-alone cages and the other with cage and plate fixation. Data on surgical duration, blood loss, fusion stability, and complication rates were collected. Clinical outcomes, including neck pain and functional status, were assessed using standard scoring systems.

Results: Plate fixation provided superior fusion stability but was associated with longer surgery durations, higher intraoperative blood loss, and increased complication rates. Stand-alone cages reduced intraoperative trauma but demonstrated higher subsidence rates and prolonged fusion times. Both techniques resulted in significant improvements in neck pain and disability scores.

Discussion: While both approaches are effective for managing cervical disc herniation, each has distinct advantages and limitations. Surgical technique selection should be individualized, considering patient-specific anatomical factors, functional demands, and the risk-benefit profile of each approach.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
494
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues. Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications. JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.
×
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