European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
Anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion vs. anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion for two-level cervical spondylosis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Wang Hong, Liu Yang, Wu Tingkui, Yan Chunyi, He Junbo, Huang Kangkang, Rong Xin, Ding Chen, Wang Beiyu, Liu Hao
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Anterior cervical X-shape-corpectomy and fusion (ACXF) is a novel cervical surgery, designed as partial alternative to the classic technique, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the early-stage outcomes of ACXF in treating two-level cervical spondylosis (CS) through comparisons with ACCF.
METHODS: A retrospectively comparative study was conducted in two cohorts of patients who underwent single-vertebral ACXF or ACCF to treat two-level CS during September 2019 and October 2021. Clinical and radiological data of all the patients were collected from pre-operation to 1 year after the surgery, following by intra- and intergroup analyses and comparisons.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included, with 24 undergoing ACXF and 33 undergoing ACCF. ACXF group had significantly shorter drainage duration (2.13 ± 0.61 days vs. 3.48 ± 1.30 days, P < 0.001) and less drainage volume (30.21 ± 26.88 ml vs. 69.30 ± 37.65 ml, P < 0.001) than ACCF group. Both techniques significantly improved all the clinical parameters (P < 0.01) with comparable effects (P > 0.05). Each complication rate in ACXF group was lower than that in ACCF group without significant difference (P > 0.05). ACXF showed a significantly smaller transverse decompression range than ACCF (11.93 ± 1.27 mm vs. 16.29 ± 1.88 mm, P < 0.001). Postoperatively, ACXF yielded a comparable fusion rate (P > 0.05) and a significantly lower subsidence rate (P < 0.01) than ACCF technique at all time points.
CONCLUSIONS: ACXF is a potential surgical alternative for certain patients with two-level CS, as it provides both adequate decompression range and fewer adverse events than ACCF. The further modifications on ACXF worth exploration.
METHODS: A retrospectively comparative study was conducted in two cohorts of patients who underwent single-vertebral ACXF or ACCF to treat two-level CS during September 2019 and October 2021. Clinical and radiological data of all the patients were collected from pre-operation to 1 year after the surgery, following by intra- and intergroup analyses and comparisons.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included, with 24 undergoing ACXF and 33 undergoing ACCF. ACXF group had significantly shorter drainage duration (2.13 ± 0.61 days vs. 3.48 ± 1.30 days, P < 0.001) and less drainage volume (30.21 ± 26.88 ml vs. 69.30 ± 37.65 ml, P < 0.001) than ACCF group. Both techniques significantly improved all the clinical parameters (P < 0.01) with comparable effects (P > 0.05). Each complication rate in ACXF group was lower than that in ACCF group without significant difference (P > 0.05). ACXF showed a significantly smaller transverse decompression range than ACCF (11.93 ± 1.27 mm vs. 16.29 ± 1.88 mm, P < 0.001). Postoperatively, ACXF yielded a comparable fusion rate (P > 0.05) and a significantly lower subsidence rate (P < 0.01) than ACCF technique at all time points.
CONCLUSIONS: ACXF is a potential surgical alternative for certain patients with two-level CS, as it provides both adequate decompression range and fewer adverse events than ACCF. The further modifications on ACXF worth exploration.