Locking stand-alone cages versus anterior plate constructs in single-level fusion for degenerative cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 936 Downloads
To conduct a meta-analysis to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery for degenerative cervical disease performed by either single-level locking stand-alone cage (LSC) or anterior plate construct (APC).
We performed a comprehensive database search of Medline, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews according to PRISMA guidelines and identified six articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. We excluded all non-English language articles and articles which did not directly compare LSC and APC. Only papers which focussed on single-level ACDF were included in the study.
There were no significant differences in blood loss, clinical outcomes (JOA, VAS, NDI scores) or radiological outcomes (cervical lordosis, segmental Cobb angle, subsidence and fusion) between the two groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LSC group (MD 7.2 min, 95% CI 0.3–14.1, p = 0.04). APC was associated with a statistically significant increase in dysphagia in the follow-up period (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.0–36.6, p = 0.05).
LSC and APC have similar clinical and radiological outcomes. Further blinded randomised trials are required to establish conclusive evidence in favour of LSC with regards to minimising post-operative dysphagia. We also encourage future studies to make use of formalised dysphagia outcome measures in reporting complications.
KeywordsStand-alone Zero-profile ACDF Cervical Plate
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There was no funding for this research.
- 1.Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Jt Surg Am 40A:607–624Google Scholar
- 9.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Nemoto O, Kitada A, Naitou S, Tachibana A, Ito Y, Fujikawa A (2015) 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. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(Suppl 1):S127–S134. doi: 10.1007/s00590-014-1547-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Shin JS, Oh SH, Cho PG (2014) Surgical outcome of a zero-profile device comparing with stand-alone cage and anterior cervical plate with iliac bone graft in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Korean J Spine 11:169–177. doi: 10.14245/kjs.2014.11.3.169 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Son DK, Son DW, Kim HS, Sung SK, Lee SW, Song GS (2014) Comparative study of clinical and radiological outcomes of a zero-profile device concerning reduced postoperative dysphagia after single level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 56:103–107. doi: 10.3340/jkns.2014.56.2.103 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Wang Z, Zhu R, Yang H, Shen M, Wang G, Chen K, Gan M, Li M (2015) Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage Benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:290. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0746-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.Tabaraee E, Ahn J, Bohl DD, Collins MJ, Massel DH, Aboushaala K, Singh K (2016) Comparison of surgical outcomes, narcotics utilization, and costs after an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: stand-alone cage versus anterior plating. Clin Spine Surg. doi: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000341 Google Scholar
- 15.Shao H, Chen J, Ru B, Yan F, Zhang J, Xu S, Huang Y (2015) Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate implant in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of degenerative cervical spondylosis: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 10:148. doi: 10.1186/s13018-015-0290-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Liu W, Hu L, Wang J, Liu M, Wang X (2015) Comparison of zero-profile anchored spacer versus plate-cage construct in treatment of cervical spondylosis with regard to clinical outcomes and incidence of major complications: a meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 11:1437–1447. doi: 10.2147/tcrm.s92511 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Nayak AN, Stein MI, James CR, Gaskins 3rd RB, Cabezas AF, Adu-Lartey M, Castellvi AE, Santoni BG (2014) Biomechanical analysis of an interbody cage with three integrated cancellous lag screws in a two-level cervical spine fusion construct: an in vitro study. Spine J 14:3002–3010Google Scholar
- 22.Shi S, Liu ZD, Li XF, Qian L, Zhong GB, Chen FJ (2015) Comparison of plate-cage construct and stand-alone anchored spacer in the surgical treatment of three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a preliminary clinical study. Spine J 15:1973–1980. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.04.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar