World neurosurgery · 2024
Assessing Surgical Outcomes for Cage Plate System versus Stand-Alone Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elias Elias, Daoud Ali, Smith Justin, Elias Charbel, Nasser Zeina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical procedure for addressing cervical spine conditions. It involves the utilization of either cage plate system (CPS) or stand-alone cage (SC). The objective of our study is to compare perioperative complications, patient-reported clinical outcomes measures, and radiographic outcomes of SC versus CPS in ACDF.
METHODS: We carried out a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of science, Medline, and Google Scholar. All studies comparing the outcomes between CPS versus SC in ACDF were included.
RESULTS: Forty-one studies, 33 observational and 8 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. We found that both devices demonstrated comparable effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF with respect to Japanese Orthopedic Association Score, Neck Disability Index score, visual analog score, and fusion rates. CPS demonstrated superior performance in maintaining disc height, cervical lordosis, and exhibited lower incidence rates of cage subsidence. SC showed significant advantages over CPS in terms of shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter duration of hospitalization, as well as lower incidence rates of early postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included studies had monosegmented fusion, and there wasn't enough data to set recommendations for the multisegmented fusions. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to draw more definitive conclusions to provide evidence for clinicians to make clinical decisions.
METHODS: We carried out a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of science, Medline, and Google Scholar. All studies comparing the outcomes between CPS versus SC in ACDF were included.
RESULTS: Forty-one studies, 33 observational and 8 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. We found that both devices demonstrated comparable effectiveness in monosegmental ACDF with respect to Japanese Orthopedic Association Score, Neck Disability Index score, visual analog score, and fusion rates. CPS demonstrated superior performance in maintaining disc height, cervical lordosis, and exhibited lower incidence rates of cage subsidence. SC showed significant advantages over CPS in terms of shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter duration of hospitalization, as well as lower incidence rates of early postoperative dysphagia and adjacent segment disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included studies had monosegmented fusion, and there wasn't enough data to set recommendations for the multisegmented fusions. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to draw more definitive conclusions to provide evidence for clinicians to make clinical decisions.