» Articles » PMID: 38872722

Comparison of the Efficacy of ROI-C Cage with Zero-P Device in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: a Two-year Follow-up Study

Overview
Journal Front Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2024 Jun 14
PMID 38872722
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of Zero-P and ROI-C devices applied to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).

Methods: From January 2020 and December 2020, 56 patients with CDDD who underwent ACDF using Zero-P or ROI-C were included in this retrospective study. The outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, neck disability index (NDI) score, Cobb angle, dysphagia, and bone fusion rate. Dysphagia was assessed using the Bazaz grading system. The comparison of outcomes between the two groups was based on the 2-year follow-up time point, which was defined as the last follow-up visit.

Results: The Zero-P group included 16 males and 14 females, with a mean age of 56.2 (range, 35-65) years. The ROI-C group included 11 males and 15 females, with a mean age of 57.4 (range, 36-67) years. There was no significant difference in gender and mean age between the two groups. There were no significant differences in VAS score, JOA score, NDI score, Cobb angle, dysphagia, and bone fusion rate between two groups at the last follow up visit. In the Zero-P group, the duration of surgeries involving C3-4 or C6-7 segments was significantly longer than those including C4-5 or C5-6 segments (135.0 ± 19.0 vs. 105.6 ± 17.5 min,  < 0.05). In surgeries involving C3-4 or C6-7 segments, the operation time of ROI-C was significantly shorter than that of Zero-P (106.5 ± 19.5 vs.112.2 ± 20.5 min,  < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the dysphagia or cage subsidence rates between the Zero-P and ROI-C groups ( > 0.05). The Cobb angle in the last follow-up visit in the Zero-P group (24.4 ± 4.5°) was significantly higher than that in the ROI-C group (18.1 ± 2.3°) ( < 0.05).

Conclusions: ACDF using ROI-C device showed an efficacy similar to the Zero-P device, as well as a shorter operation time for surgeries involving C3-4 or C6-7 segments. However, ROI-C could cause more loss of Cobb angle over time, which could lead to uncomfortable symptoms.

Citing Articles

Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid use in elderly patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective study.

Lou Z, Jiang Y, Jiang K, Zhu J, Lai L, Huang Z J Int Med Res. 2024; 52(9):3000605241285661.

PMID: 39340253 PMC: 11445765. DOI: 10.1177/03000605241285661.

References
1.
Chen Y, Liu Y, Chen H, Cao P, Yuan W . Comparison of Curvature Between the Zero-P Spacer and Traditional Cage and Plate After 3-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Mid-term Results. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; 30(8):E1111-E1116. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000440. View

2.
Cho H, Hur J, Lee J, Han J, Cho T, Park J . Cervical Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone Cage versus Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer in Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion : Minimum 2-Year Assessment of Radiographic and Clinical Outcome. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015; 58(2):119-24. PMC: 4564743. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2015.58.2.119. View

3.
Wang K, Duan S, Zhu Z, Liu H, Liu C, Xu S . Clinical and Radiologic Features of 3 Reconstructive Procedures for the Surgical Management of Patients with Bilevel Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease at a Minimum Follow-Up Period of 5 Years: A Comparative Study. World Neurosurg. 2018; 113:e70-e76. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.157. View

4.
Babici D, Johansen P, Miller T, Snelling B . Five-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion. Cureus. 2022; 13(11):e19961. PMC: 8714041. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19961. View

5.
Wang T, Ma L, Yang D, Wang H, Bai Z, Zhang L . Factors predicting dysphagia after anterior cervical surgery: A multicenter retrospective study for 2 years of follow-up. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(34):e7916. PMC: 5572038. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007916. View