Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2017
A radiographic follow-up study of stand-alone-cage and graft-plate constructs for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Baker Joseph F, Gomez Jaime, Shenoy Kartik, Kim Sarah, Razi Afshin, Kim Yong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) may be performed using an interbody cage or graft with an anterior plate or with a stand-alone (SA) interbody device without the anterior plate. The pros and cons of each vary. This study examined the radiographic outcome of the two techniques with a focus on implant subsidence.
METHODS: A retrospective review of cases of singe level ACDF by a single surgeon was undertaken. Medical and radiographic records were reviewed to determine subsidence, pre- and post-operative segmental and total lordosis in cohorts of both stand-alone and graft-and-plate constructs.
RESULTS: The post-operative radiographs of 35 patients with a SA cage were compared with 41 patients with an allograft block and anterior plate (graft and plate; GP). There was no significant difference in overall subsidence between the two groups although there was a trend toward less clinically significant subsidence (2 mm) in the SA group. For single level ACDF, a SA device appears to be comparable in terms of undesired subsidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Further studies with different implants and materials may offer further insight.
METHODS: A retrospective review of cases of singe level ACDF by a single surgeon was undertaken. Medical and radiographic records were reviewed to determine subsidence, pre- and post-operative segmental and total lordosis in cohorts of both stand-alone and graft-and-plate constructs.
RESULTS: The post-operative radiographs of 35 patients with a SA cage were compared with 41 patients with an allograft block and anterior plate (graft and plate; GP). There was no significant difference in overall subsidence between the two groups although there was a trend toward less clinically significant subsidence (2 mm) in the SA group. For single level ACDF, a SA device appears to be comparable in terms of undesired subsidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Further studies with different implants and materials may offer further insight.