» Articles » PMID: 32251812

Incidence of Subsidence of Seven Intervertebral Devices in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Network Meta-Analysis

Overview
Journal World Neurosurg
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2020 Apr 7
PMID 32251812
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Subsidence is an incapacitating complication in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the debate over which of the intervertebral devices is associated with lower incidence of subsidence remains to be settled.

Methods: Seven dominant techniques comprising cage with plate (CP), iliac bone graft with plate (IP), Zero-profile cage with screws (Zero-P), ROI-C cages with clips (ROI-C), polyether ether ketone cage alone (PCA), iliac crest autogenous graft (ICAG), and titanium cage alone (TCA) were examined. The incidences of subsidence in the different groups were calculated and compared.

Results: A total of 30 studies with 2264 patients were identified. Overall, the CP group presented the lowest incidence of subsidence, and its incidence was significantly lower than that in the Zero-P group, the PCA group, the ICAG group, and the TCA group (P < 0.05). The incidence of subsidence in the IP group was significantly lower than that in the PCA group, the ICAG group, and the TCA group (P < 0.05). In single-level ACDF, the CP group presented the lowest incidence of subsidence, and its incidence was significantly lower than that in the PCA group and the TCA group (P < 0.05). No difference was found between single-level and multilevel ACDF and the incidence of subsidence was higher in those undergoing single-level ACDF.

Conclusions: CP and IP resulted in a lower rate of subsidence than cage alone or ICAG. Zero-P and ROI-C cages led to similar subsidence rates with plate. All types of intervertebral device can be applied to both single-level and multilevel ACDF with comparable subsidence rate.

Citing Articles

Clinical and radiographic outcomes after index anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with interbody spacer with integrated anchor fixation: a single-surgeon case study.

Venkatraman V, Albanese J, Zaidi S, Than K, Erickson M, Crutcher C J Spine Surg. 2024; 10(3):416-427.

PMID: 39399077 PMC: 11467272. DOI: 10.21037/jss-24-32.


Does the Angulation of the Screws in the Zero-P Implant Affect the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Patients?.

Huang C, Sheng X, Wu T, Wang B, Wen D, He L Orthop Surg. 2024; 16(11):2699-2707.

PMID: 39107872 PMC: 11541112. DOI: 10.1111/os.14182.


Does Screw Number of Zero-profile Implants in Fusion Segment Influence Intervertebral Stability?.

Peng Z, Deng Y, Sheng X, Liu H, Li Y, Hong Y Orthop Surg. 2024; 16(10):2355-2363.

PMID: 38898377 PMC: 11456718. DOI: 10.1111/os.14139.


Application of 3D‑printed porous titanium interbody fusion cage vs. polyether ether ketone interbody fusion cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update.

Zhai W, Liu L, Gao Y, Qin S, Han P, Xu Y Exp Ther Med. 2024; 28(1):290.

PMID: 38827472 PMC: 11140292. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2024.12579.


Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Jain A, Dhanjani S, Harris A, Cartagena M, Babu J, Riew D Global Spine J. 2024; 14(2_suppl):34S-42S.

PMID: 38421329 PMC: 10913916. DOI: 10.1177/21925682231171857.