{"title":"在 ACDF 中使用独立支架与前支架板结构的放射学融合率和下沉率","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.semss.2024.101105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Retrospective cohort</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span><span>The addition of an anterior cervical plate to a structural allograft during </span>ACDF<span> is thought to provide extra stability and enhance fusion, but it may increase the risk of complications like dysphagia. Stand-alone cages were designed to provide this extra stability without the need for the plate, but these may increase a patient's risk of subsidence, </span></span>cervical dislocation<span>, and cervical kyphosis. The purpose of this study was to assess </span></span>reoperation rates and radiographic outcomes during follow-up longer than 6 months for patients who underwent ACDF with a cage and plate compared to stand-alone cage.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>ACDF cases were retrospectively identified for four fellowship trained spine surgeons from 2016 – 2020 from two academic hospitals. A total of 57 stand-alone structural allograft constructs were matched via propensity scoring with a cohort of 65 patients with plate-secured structural allograft constructs. The primary outcome was reoperation rate within the follow-up period and secondary outcomes included complications, operative characteristics, readmission within 30 days, reoperation within 30 days and within follow-up, and radiographic outcomes. Immediate post-operative radiographs were compared to final follow-up radiographs at least 6 months post-operation to assess for evidence of subsidence, fusion, and change in cervical kyphosis using the Cobb angle technique.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 5 patients (5.26 %) in the stand-alone cohort and 4 patients (3.15 %) in the plate cohort that had cervical reoperation at any time in follow-up (<em>P</em> = 0.83). At final follow-up, 58 patients (92.1 %) in the plate group and 37 patients (75.5 %) in the stand-alone group had radiographic evidence of fusion (<em>P</em> = 0.015). There were 38 patients (77.6 %) in the stand-alone group and 29 patients (46 %) in the plate group with evidence of subsidence (<em>P</em> = 0.0007). Patients with subsidence had a greater change in kyphosis angle at final follow-up and this change was significantly decreased in the plate group compared to the stand-alone group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of anterior cage-plate constructs in ACDF produces higher rates of fusion and lower rates of subsidence than stand-alone cage constructs. Subsidence significantly increases the change in kyphosis angle between post-op and final follow-up, and the presence of a spanning plate significantly reduces this angle change compared to stand-alone cages. There were no statistically significant differences in reoperation rates, regardless of radiographic evidence of subsidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39884,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Spine Surgery","volume":"36 3","pages":"Article 101105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radiographic fusion and subsidence rates for stand-alone cage versus anterior cage-plate construct in ACDF\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.semss.2024.101105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Retrospective cohort</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span><span>The addition of an anterior cervical plate to a structural allograft during </span>ACDF<span> is thought to provide extra stability and enhance fusion, but it may increase the risk of complications like dysphagia. Stand-alone cages were designed to provide this extra stability without the need for the plate, but these may increase a patient's risk of subsidence, </span></span>cervical dislocation<span>, and cervical kyphosis. The purpose of this study was to assess </span></span>reoperation rates and radiographic outcomes during follow-up longer than 6 months for patients who underwent ACDF with a cage and plate compared to stand-alone cage.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>ACDF cases were retrospectively identified for four fellowship trained spine surgeons from 2016 – 2020 from two academic hospitals. A total of 57 stand-alone structural allograft constructs were matched via propensity scoring with a cohort of 65 patients with plate-secured structural allograft constructs. The primary outcome was reoperation rate within the follow-up period and secondary outcomes included complications, operative characteristics, readmission within 30 days, reoperation within 30 days and within follow-up, and radiographic outcomes. Immediate post-operative radiographs were compared to final follow-up radiographs at least 6 months post-operation to assess for evidence of subsidence, fusion, and change in cervical kyphosis using the Cobb angle technique.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 5 patients (5.26 %) in the stand-alone cohort and 4 patients (3.15 %) in the plate cohort that had cervical reoperation at any time in follow-up (<em>P</em> = 0.83). At final follow-up, 58 patients (92.1 %) in the plate group and 37 patients (75.5 %) in the stand-alone group had radiographic evidence of fusion (<em>P</em> = 0.015). There were 38 patients (77.6 %) in the stand-alone group and 29 patients (46 %) in the plate group with evidence of subsidence (<em>P</em> = 0.0007). Patients with subsidence had a greater change in kyphosis angle at final follow-up and this change was significantly decreased in the plate group compared to the stand-alone group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of anterior cage-plate constructs in ACDF produces higher rates of fusion and lower rates of subsidence than stand-alone cage constructs. Subsidence significantly increases the change in kyphosis angle between post-op and final follow-up, and the presence of a spanning plate significantly reduces this angle change compared to stand-alone cages. There were no statistically significant differences in reoperation rates, regardless of radiographic evidence of subsidence.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 101105\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040738324000285\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040738324000285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Radiographic fusion and subsidence rates for stand-alone cage versus anterior cage-plate construct in ACDF
Study Design
Retrospective cohort
Background
The addition of an anterior cervical plate to a structural allograft during ACDF is thought to provide extra stability and enhance fusion, but it may increase the risk of complications like dysphagia. Stand-alone cages were designed to provide this extra stability without the need for the plate, but these may increase a patient's risk of subsidence, cervical dislocation, and cervical kyphosis. The purpose of this study was to assess reoperation rates and radiographic outcomes during follow-up longer than 6 months for patients who underwent ACDF with a cage and plate compared to stand-alone cage.
Methods
ACDF cases were retrospectively identified for four fellowship trained spine surgeons from 2016 – 2020 from two academic hospitals. A total of 57 stand-alone structural allograft constructs were matched via propensity scoring with a cohort of 65 patients with plate-secured structural allograft constructs. The primary outcome was reoperation rate within the follow-up period and secondary outcomes included complications, operative characteristics, readmission within 30 days, reoperation within 30 days and within follow-up, and radiographic outcomes. Immediate post-operative radiographs were compared to final follow-up radiographs at least 6 months post-operation to assess for evidence of subsidence, fusion, and change in cervical kyphosis using the Cobb angle technique.
Results
There were 5 patients (5.26 %) in the stand-alone cohort and 4 patients (3.15 %) in the plate cohort that had cervical reoperation at any time in follow-up (P = 0.83). At final follow-up, 58 patients (92.1 %) in the plate group and 37 patients (75.5 %) in the stand-alone group had radiographic evidence of fusion (P = 0.015). There were 38 patients (77.6 %) in the stand-alone group and 29 patients (46 %) in the plate group with evidence of subsidence (P = 0.0007). Patients with subsidence had a greater change in kyphosis angle at final follow-up and this change was significantly decreased in the plate group compared to the stand-alone group.
Conclusion
The use of anterior cage-plate constructs in ACDF produces higher rates of fusion and lower rates of subsidence than stand-alone cage constructs. Subsidence significantly increases the change in kyphosis angle between post-op and final follow-up, and the presence of a spanning plate significantly reduces this angle change compared to stand-alone cages. There were no statistically significant differences in reoperation rates, regardless of radiographic evidence of subsidence.
期刊介绍:
Seminars in Spine Surgery is a continuing source of current, clinical information for practicing surgeons. Under the direction of a specially selected guest editor, each issue addresses a single topic in the management and care of patients. Topics covered in each issue include basic anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, management options and follow-up of the condition under consideration. The journal also features "Spinescope," a special section providing summaries of articles from other journals that are of relevance to the understanding of ongoing research related to the treatment of spinal disorders.