MedElevator
Войти в исследования PloS one · 2014
Evaluation of anterior cervical reconstruction with titanium mesh cages versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 cages after 1- or 2-level corpectomy for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study of 117 patients.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Zhang Yuan, Quan Zhengxue, Zhao Zenghui, Luo Xiaoji, Tang Ke, Li Jie, Zhou Xu, Jiang Dianming
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the efficacy of the titanium mesh cage (TMC) and the nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 cage (n-HA/PA66 cage) for 1- or 2-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) to treat multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM).
METHODS: A total of 117 consecutive patients with MCSM who underwent 1- or 2-level ACCF using a TMC or an n-HA/PA66 cage were studied retrospectively at a mean follow-up of 45.28 ± 12.83 months. The patients were divided into four groups according to the level of corpectomy (1- or 2-level corpectomy) and cage type used (TMC or n-HA/PA66 cage). Clinical and radiological parameters were used to evaluate outcomes.
RESULTS: At the one-year follow-up, the fusion rate in the n-HA/PA66 group was higher, albeit non-significantly, than that in the TMC group for both 1- and 2-level ACCF, but the fusion rates of the procedures were almost equal at the final follow-up. The incidence of cage subsidence at the final follow-up was significantly higher in the TMC group than in the n-HA/PA66 group for the 1-level ACCF (24% vs. 4%, p = 0.01), and the difference was greater for the 2-level ACCF between the TMC group and the n-HA/PA66 group (38% vs. 5%, p = 0.01). Meanwhile, a much greater loss of fused height was observed in the TMC group compared with the n-HA/PA66 group for both the 1- and 2-level ACCF. All four groups demonstrated increases in C2-C7 Cobb angle and JOA scores and decreases in VAS at the final follow-up compared with preoperative values.
CONCLUSION: The lower incidence of cage subsidence, better maintenance of the height of the fused segment and similar excellent bony fusion indicate that the n-HA/PA66 cage may be a superior alternative to the TMC for cervical reconstruction after cervical corpectomy, in particular for 2-level ACCF.
METHODS: A total of 117 consecutive patients with MCSM who underwent 1- or 2-level ACCF using a TMC or an n-HA/PA66 cage were studied retrospectively at a mean follow-up of 45.28 ± 12.83 months. The patients were divided into four groups according to the level of corpectomy (1- or 2-level corpectomy) and cage type used (TMC or n-HA/PA66 cage). Clinical and radiological parameters were used to evaluate outcomes.
RESULTS: At the one-year follow-up, the fusion rate in the n-HA/PA66 group was higher, albeit non-significantly, than that in the TMC group for both 1- and 2-level ACCF, but the fusion rates of the procedures were almost equal at the final follow-up. The incidence of cage subsidence at the final follow-up was significantly higher in the TMC group than in the n-HA/PA66 group for the 1-level ACCF (24% vs. 4%, p = 0.01), and the difference was greater for the 2-level ACCF between the TMC group and the n-HA/PA66 group (38% vs. 5%, p = 0.01). Meanwhile, a much greater loss of fused height was observed in the TMC group compared with the n-HA/PA66 group for both the 1- and 2-level ACCF. All four groups demonstrated increases in C2-C7 Cobb angle and JOA scores and decreases in VAS at the final follow-up compared with preoperative values.
CONCLUSION: The lower incidence of cage subsidence, better maintenance of the height of the fused segment and similar excellent bony fusion indicate that the n-HA/PA66 cage may be a superior alternative to the TMC for cervical reconstruction after cervical corpectomy, in particular for 2-level ACCF.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedCervical VertebraeDecompression, SurgicalDurapatiteFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNanocompositesNylonsOrthopedic Fixation DevicesRadiographyPlastic Surgery ProceduresRetrospective StudiesSpinal Cord DiseasesSpinal FusionSpondylosisSurgical MeshTime FactorsTitaniumTreatment Outcome