Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes of different zero-profile spacers in the treatment of two-level cervical degenerative disk disease

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and radiological outcomes of two different zero-profile spacers (ROI-C and anchor-C) in contiguous two-level ACDF for CDDD patients.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent contiguous two-level ACDF due to CDDD between January 2015 and December 2020 in our hospital. Patients who received ROI-C and anchor-C were included as the study groups, and those who underwent plate-cage construct (PCC) were included as the control group. The primary outcome measures were radiographical parameters, and the secondary outcome measures were dysphagia, JOA scores and VAS scores for these patients.

Results

A total of 91 patients were enrolled in the study; there were 31, 21 and 39 patients in the ROI-C, anchor-C and PCC groups, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 24.52 months (range, 18–48 months) in the ROI-C group, 24.38 months (range, 16–52 months) in the anchor-C group and 25.18 months (range, 15–54 months) in the PCC group. The loss of the intervertebral space height and cage subsidence rate in the ROI-C group were significantly higher than those in the anchor-C group and PCC group at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). The ROI-C group showed a lower incidence of adjacent segment degeneration than the anchor-C group and PCC group, but the difference was not significant. The fusion rates were not different among these three groups. The early dysphagia rate was significantly lower in the patients with zero-profile spacers than in the PCC group (P < 0.05), but the difference was not significant at the last follow-up. No relevant differences were found in the JOA scores and VAS scores.

Conclusions

Zero-profile spacers showed promising clinical outcomes in CDDD patients having contiguous two-level ACDF. However, ROI-C resulted in a higher intervertebral space height loss and a higher cage subsidence rate than anchor-C during the follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 Joint Surg Am 40A:607–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim YS, Park JY, Moon BJ, Kim SD, Lee JK (2018) Is stand alone PEEK cage the gold standard in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)? Results of a minimum 1-year follow up. J Clin Neurosci 47:341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2017.10.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jimenez KA, Kim J, Lee J et al (2021) Short plate with screw angle over 20 degrees improves the radiologic outcome in ACDF: clinical study. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10092034

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gabr MA, Touko E, Yadav AP et al (2020) Improved dysphagia outcomes in anchored spacers versus plate-screw systems in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J 10:1057–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219895266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao Y, Yang S, Huo Y, Li Z, Yang D, Ding W (2020) Locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J 29:2734–2744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06561-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grasso G, Giambartino F, Tomasello G, Iacopino G (2014) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with ROI-C peek cage: cervical alignment and patient outcomes. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):650–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3553-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2014.56.2.103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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):S127-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1547-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Guo J, Jin W, Shi Y et al (2022) Is the zero-p spacer suitable for 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery in terms of sagittal alignment reconstruction: a comparison study with traditional plate and cage system. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12111583

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bazaz R, Lee MJ, Yoo JU (2002) Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2453–2458. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200211150-00007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pitzen TR, Chrobok J, Stulik J et al (2009) Implant complications, fusion, loss of lordosis, and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: two-year results of a multi-centric, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:641–646. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318198ce10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jin ZY, Teng Y, Wang HZ, Yang HL, Lu YJ, Gan MF (2021) Comparative analysis of cage subsidence in anterior cervical decompression and fusion: zero profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) vs. conventional cage and plate construct. Front Surg 8:736680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.736680

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong AYL, Harada G, Lee R et al (2021) Preoperative paraspinal neck muscle characteristics predict early onset adjacent segment degeneration in anterior cervical fusion patients: a machine-learning modeling analysis. J Orthop Res 39:1732–1744. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yamaguchi S, Mitsuhara T, Abiko M, Takeda M, Kurisu K (2018) Epidemiology and overview of the clinical spectrum of degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 29:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG (2015) Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E675–E693. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lv Y, Tian W, Chen D, Liu Y, Wang L, Duan F (2018) The prevalence and associated factors of symptomatic cervical Spondylosis in Chinese adults: a community-based cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2234-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lu VM, Mobbs RJ, Fang B, Phan K (2019) Clinical outcomes of locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 28:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5811-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen Y, Chen H, Cao P, Yuan W (2015) Anterior cervical interbody fusion with the zero-P spacer: mid-term results of two-level fusion. Eur Spine J 24:1666–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3919-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Song KJ, Choi BW, Ham DH, Kim HJ (2020) Prognosis of hardware-related problems in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cage and plate constructs. World Neurosurg 134:e249–e255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Donohoe TJ, Mililli L, Magee A, Thien C, Wang YY (2020) Effect of the presence and type of plate augmentation on postoperative dysphagia among adult patients undergoing elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for spondylosis: a randomized trial. Neurospine 17:174–183. https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1938446.223

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Xiao B, Wu B, Rong T, Cui W, Sang D, Liu B (2021) Clinical impact of 3-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) on the occipito-atlantoaxial complex: a retrospective study of patients who received a zero-profile anchored spacer versus cage-plate construct. Eur Spine J 30:3656–3665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06974-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang J, Wang S, Tang X et al (2022) Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur J Med Res 27:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee YS, Kim YB, Park SW (2014) Risk factors for postoperative subsidence of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: the significance of the preoperative cervical alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1280–1287. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lu Y, Fang Y, Shen X et al (2020) Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 15:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01711-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lin M, Shapiro SZ, Doulgeris J, Engeberg ED, Tsai CT, Vrionis FD (2021) Cage-screw and anterior plating combination reduces the risk of micromotion and subsidence in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion-a finite element study. Spine J 21:874–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu D, Zhang D, Liu B, Li C, Zhu J (2019) Can self-locking cages offer the same clinical outcomes as anterior cage-with-plate fixation for 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in mid-term follow-up? Med Sci Monit 25:547–557. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.911234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kapoen C, Liu Y, Bloemers FW, Deunk J (2020) Pedicle screw fixation of thoracolumbar fractures: conventional short segment versus short segment with intermediate screws at the fracture level-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 29:2491–2504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06479-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahn SS, Paik HK, Chin DK, Kim SH, Kim DW, Ku MG (2016) The fate of adjacent segments after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: the influence of an anterior plate system. World Neurosurg 89:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.01.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Guo Z, Wu X, Yang S et al (2021) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using zero-P system for treatment of cervical spondylosis: a meta-analysis. Pain Res Manag 2021:3960553. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3960553

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wong SH, Chiu KY, Yan CH (2016) Review Article: Osteophytes. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 24:403–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1602400327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2431–2434. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vaishnav AS, Saville P, McAnany S et al (2019) Predictive factors of postoperative dysphagia in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44:E400–E407. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sommaruga S, Camara-Quintana J, Patel K et al (2021) Clinical outcomes between stand-alone zero-profile spacers and cervical plate with cage fixation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective analysis of 166 patients. J Clin Med 10:456. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10143076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu Y, Wang H, Li X et al (2016) Comparison of a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with an anterior plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 25:1881–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4500-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tortolani PJ, Cunningham BW, Vigna F, Hu N, Zorn CM, McAfee PC (2006) A comparison of retraction pressure during anterior cervical plate surgery and cervical disc replacement: a cadaveric study. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:312–317. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000210117.01897.ca

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The study was funded by the projects for Local Science and Technology Development Guided by the Central Committee (No. 20222ZDH04095), and Key Research and Development Program of Jiangxi Province (No.20223BBG71S02).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Innovation Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, People’s Republic of China

    Xu Xiong, Jia-Ming Liu, Wei-Wen Chen, Zi-Hao Liu, Rong-Ping Zhou, Jiang-Wei Chen & Zhi-Li Liu

  2. Institute of Spine and Spinal Cord, Nanchang University, No.17 Yongwaizheng Street, Donghu District, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, People’s Republic of China

    Xu Xiong, Jia-Ming Liu, Wei-Wen Chen, Zi-Hao Liu, Rong-Ping Zhou, Jiang-Wei Chen & Zhi-Li Liu

Authors
  1. Xu Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jia-Ming Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Wen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zi-Hao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rong-Ping Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jiang-Wei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zhi-Li Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhi-Li Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No benefits in any form have been or will be received from any commercial party related to the subject of this manuscript. None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiong, X., Liu, JM., Chen, WW. et al. Outcomes of different zero-profile spacers in the treatment of two-level cervical degenerative disk disease. Eur Spine J 32, 2448–2458 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07756-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07756-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation