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
Authors Liu W, Hu L, Wang J, Liu M, Wang X
Received 16 July 2015
Accepted for publication 24 August 2015
Published 23 September 2015 Volume 2015:11 Pages 1437—1447
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Hoa Le
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Deyun Wang
Weijun Liu,1,* Ling Hu,2,* Junwen Wang,1 Ming Liu,1 Xiaomei Wang3
1Department of Orthopedics, Pu Ai Hospital, Affiliated to Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2Department of Anesthesiology, Tianyou Hospital, Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology, 3Department of Biological Science and Technology, Wuhan Bioengineering Institute, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Purpose: Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether zero-profile anchored spacer (Zero-P) could reduce complication rates, while maintaining similar clinical outcomes compared to plate-cage construct (PCC) in the treatment of cervical spondylosis.
Methods: All prospective and retrospective comparative studies published up to May 2015 that compared the clinical outcomes of Zero-P versus PCC in the treatment of cervical spondylosis were acquired by a comprehensive search in PubMed and EMBASE. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies, noncomparative studies, hybrid surgeries, revision surgeries, and surgeries with less than a 12-month follow-up period. The main end points including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, cervical lordosis, fusion rate, subsidence, and dysphagia were analyzed. All studies were analyzed with the RevMan 5.2.0 software. Publication biases of main results were examined using Stata 12.0.
Results: A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No statistical difference was observed with regard to preoperative or postoperative JOA and NDI scores, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. The Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group (P<0.05, risk difference =0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00–0.26). However, the Zero-P group had a significantly lower postoperative dysphagia rate than the PCC group within the first 2 weeks (P<0.05, odds ratio [OR] =0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91), at the 6th month [P<0.05, OR =0.20, 95% CI 0.04–0.90], and at the final follow-up time [P<0.05, OR =0.13, 95% CI 0.04–0.45].
Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggested that surgical treatments of single or multiple levels of cervical spondylosis using Zero-P and PCC were similar in terms of JOA score, NDI score, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. Although the Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group, Zero-P had a lower postoperative dysphagia rate and might have a lower adjacent-level ossification rate.
Keywords: cervical spondylosis, anterior cervical decompression and fusion, integrated interbody device, dysphagia, meta-analysis, subsidence, adjacent-level ossification
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]