Abstract：Objective To compare the effectiveness between Zero-profile interbody fusion device(Zero-P) and plate cage benezech(PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Methods From August 2012 to October 2014, 63 patients were divided into two groups of Zero-P(32 patients) and PCB(31 patients) by the prospective randomized method. Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intervertebral height, cervical Cobb angle, Japanese Orthopedic Association(JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI) and long-term complications, which contained loss of screw position, dysphagia and unfusion. Results One patient in Zero-P group was lost during the follow-up, so finally 31 patients were in each group. General information of the two groups was comparable (all P values>0.05). All patients follow-up time was more than 12 months. Zero-P′s follow-up time was (15.52 ± 1. 93) months and PCB′s was (16.10 ± 2.33) months (P>0.05). Operative time and blood loss [(63.45±10.87) min; (44.35±11.53) mL] of Zero-P group were significantly less than those [(85.97±12.04) min, (66.26±19.62) mL] of PCB group (t=7.730, 5.358, all P values<0.01). Compared with the preoperative, the postoperative and last follow-up intervertebral height, cervical Cobb angle in the two groups could get good improvements (all P values<0.05), and the postoperative and last follow-up′s in the two groups had no significant difference (P>0.05). What′s more, the PCB group in maintaining postoperative cervical Cobb angle was better (P<0.05). At the last follow-up JOA score, NDI in two groups were significantly improved (all P values<0.05), and the improvement of NDI in Zero-P group was better than PCB group (P<0.01). At the last follow-up, all patients had bone fusion, but in PCB group there were two cases of screw position lost and three cases of dysphagia. Zero-P group was better in long-term complications(P< 0.05). Conclusions Both Zero-P and PCB could achieve satisfactory clinical effects in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Zero-P group has the advantages of easy operation, short operative time, good improvement of NDI and less incidence of long-term complications, but PCB is better in maintaining cervical postoperative Cobb angle.
刘光普,韩猛,汤浩,周婷婷,张易,王振飞,刘磊,刘光旺,马超. 颈前路零切迹与钢板椎间融合系统治疗单节段脊髓型颈椎病疗效比较[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2016, 21(6): 541-545.
Liu Guangpu, Han Meng, Tang Hao, Zhou Tingting, Zhang Yi, Wang Zhenfei, Liu Lei, Liu Guangwang, Ma Chao. Zero-profile interbody fusion device versus plate cage benezech in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2016, 21(6): 541-545.
Lee CH, Hyun SJ, Kim MJ, et al. Comparative analysis of 3 different construct systems for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: stand-alone cage, iliac graft plus plate augmentation, and cage plus plating[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2013, 26(2): 112-118. DOI:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318274148e.
[2]
Song KJ, Choi BY. Current concepts of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a review of literature[J]. Asian Spine J, 2014, 8(4): 531-539. DOI:10.4184/asj.2014.8.4.531.
[3]
Barbagallo GM, Romano D, Certo F, et al. Zero-P: a new zero-profile cage-plate device for single and multilevel ACDF. A single institution series with four years maximum follow-up and review of the literature on zero-profile devices[J]. Eur Spine J, 2013, 22(Suppl 6): S868-S878. DOI:10.1007/s00586-013-3005-0.
[4]
Gu Y, Yang HL, Chen L, et al. Use of an integrated anterior cervical plate and cage device (PCB) in cervical anterior fusion[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2009, 16(11): 1443-1448. DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2009.02.025.
[5]
Liu T, Yang HL, Xu YZ, et al. ACDF with the PCB cage-plate system versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2011, 24(4): 213-220. DOI:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181e9f294.
[6]
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[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2009, 34(2): 156-160. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ff9c4.
[7]
Nemoto O, Kitada A, Naitou S, et al. Stand-alone anchored cage versus cage with plating for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with a 2-year follow-up[J]. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2015, 25(Suppl 1): S127-S134. DOI:10.1007/s00590-014-1547-4.
[8]
Yang H, Chen D, Wang X, et al. Zero-profile integrated plate and spacer device reduces rate of adjacent-level ossification development and dysphagia compared to ACDF with plating and cage system[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2015, 135(6): 781-787. DOI:10.1007/s00402-015-2212-z.
[9]
Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2007, 32(21): 2310-2317. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318154c57e.
[10]
Bazaz R, Lee MJ, Yoo JU. Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2002, 27(22): 2453-2458. DOI:10.1097/01.BRS.0000031407.52778.4B.
[11]
Smith-Hammond CA, New KC, Pietrobon R, et al. Prospective analysis of incidence and risk factors of dysphagia in spine surgery patients: comparison of anterior cervical, posterior cervical, and lumbar procedures[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 2004, 29(13): 1441-1446. DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000129100.59913.ea.
[12]
Frempong-Boadu A, Houten JK, Osborn B, et al. Swallowing and speech dysfunction in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, objective preoperative and postoperative assessment[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2002, 15(5): 362-368. DOI:10.1097/00024720-200210000-00004.
[13]
Lee MJ, Bazaz R, Furey CG, et al. Influence of anterior cervical plate design on Dysphagia: a 2-year prospective longitudinal follow-up study[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005, 18(5): 406-409. DOI:10.1097/01.bsd.0000177211.44960.71.
[14]
Wang Z, Zhu R, Yang H, et al. Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2015, 16: 290. DOI:10.1186/s12891-015-0746-4.
[15]
Dong J, Lu M, Lu T, et al. Meta-analysis comparing Zero-Profile spacer and anterior plate in anterior cervical fusion[J]. PLoS ONE, 2015, 10(6): e0130223. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0130223.
[16]
Hida K, Iwasaki Y, Yano S, et al. Long-term follow-up results in patients with cervical disk disease treated by cervical anterior fusion using titanium cage implants[J]. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo), 2008, 48(10): 440-446. DOI:10.2176/nmc.48.440.
[17]
Shi S, Liu ZD, Li XF, et al. Comparison of plate-cage construct and stand-alone anchored spacer in the surgical treatment of three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a preliminary clinical study[J]. Spine J, 2015, 15(9): 1973-1980. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.04.024.
[18]
Nemoto O, Kitada A, Naitou S, et al. Stand-alone anchored cage versus cage with plating for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with a 2-year follow-up[J]. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2015, 25(Suppl 1): S127-S134. DOI:10.1007/s00590-014-1547-4.
2016, Vol. 21 
