Dataset Information

Comparison of Operating Time between Stand-alone Cage and a Standard Method for a Single Level Cervical Disc Disease.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Autologous bone graft with anterior plating had been a standard method for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Drawbacks of a standard method were donor site problem and problem associated with anterior plate. The stand-alone cage was introduced to reduce such problems. However, problems associated with subsidence and local kyphosis at the index level (segmental kyphosis) still persist with stand-alone cage and a standard method would be required in some cases. It seems that harvest of autologous bone and anterior plating procedure is time consuming, but this has not been verified. The aim of this study was to compare the operating time between patients operated on with stand-alone cage versus a standard method for single-level cervical disc disease. METHODS:Consecutive 29 patients (M:F=18:11; mean age, 58.4±12.4 years), who had undergone ACDF for single-level disc disease by a single surgeon from incision to closure during 2009-2011, were selected for this retrospective study. Seventeen patients were operated with stand-alone cage (Group I), and twelve patients were with a standard method (Group II). Operating time (from incision to closure), estimated blood loss, clinical and radiological outcomes were compared. Follow-up period was 11.4±6.3 months. RESULTS:Operating time was not different between groups longer; Group I (96.1±28.7 minutes) and Group II (112.4±31.7 minutes) (p=0.13). There was no surgery related complication. Excellent or good outcome was achieved in 11 and 10 patients of group I and II, respectively. Bony fusion was achieved in 15 and 10 patients of group I and II respectively, while one subsidence occurred in each group. Postoperative segmental angle at the index level and cervical curvature was not different between groups. No patient complained donor site pain at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:ACDF with a standard method for single-level cervical disc disease was not a time-consuming procedure comparing stand-alone cage.

SUBMITTER: Kim CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4432378 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Operating Time between Stand-alone Cage and a Standard Method for a Single Level Cervical Disc Disease.

Kim Chang Hyoun CH Kim Chi Heon CH Chung Chun Kee CK Jahng Tae-Ahn TA

Korean Journal of Spine 20120331 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Autologous bone graft with anterior plating had been a standard method for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Drawbacks of a standard method were donor site problem and problem associated with anterior plate. The stand-alone cage was introduced to reduce such problems. However, problems associated with subsidence and local kyphosis at the index level (segmental kyphosis) still persist with stand-alone cage and a standard method would be required in some cases. It s ...[more]

PMID: 25983782

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn case of spinal cord compression behind the vertebral body, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) proves to be a more feasible approach than cervical discectomy. The next step was the placement of an expandable titanium interbody in order to restore the vertebral height. The need for additional anterior plating with ACCF has been debatable and such technique has been evaluated by very few studies. The objective of the study is to evaluate radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical spine disease treated by stand-alone cages for anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF).MethodsThirty-one patients (66.5 ± 9.75 years, range 53-85 years) were analyzed. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the 10-item Neck Disability Index (NDI) were assessed preoperatively and during follow-up on a regular basis after surgery and after one year at least. Assessment of radiographic fusion, subsidence, and lordosis measurement of Global cervical lordosis (GCL); fusion site lordosis (FSL); the anterior interbody space height (ant. DSH); the posterior interbody space height (post. DSH); the distance of the cage to the posterior wall of the vertebral body (CD) were done retrospectively. Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up was 20.0 ± 4.39 months.ResultsVAS-neck (p = 0.001) and VAS-arm (p < 0.001) improved from preoperatively to postoperatively. The NDI improved at the final follow-up (p < 0.001). Neither significant subsidence of the cages nor significant loss of lordotic correction were seen. All patients showed a radiographic union of the surgically addressed segments at the last follow up.ConclusionsApplication of a stand-alone expandable cage in the cervical spine after one or two-level ACCF without additional posterior fixation or anterior plating is a safe procedure that results in fusion. Neither significant subsidence of the cages nor significant loss of lordotic correction were seen.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered. According to the Decision of the ethics committee, Jena on 25th of July 2018, that this study doesn't need any registration. https://www.laek-thueringen.de/aerzte/ethikkommission/registrierung/ .

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) have been used to treat degenerative disc disease at single as well as multiple cervical levels. This study compares the safety and efficacy of 1-level versus 2-level CDA and ACDF.MethodsIn total, 545 and 397 patients with degenerative disc disease were studied in 1-level and 2-level Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical trials, respectively: CDA (n = 280 and 209), ACDF (n = 265 and 188). Data from these studies were used to compare 1- versus 2-level procedures: the propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding effects, and adjusted mean outcome safety and efficacy scores at 2 and 7 years postsurgery were compared between 1-level and 2-level procedures within treatment type.ResultsOne-level and 2-level procedures had similar rates of improvement in overall success and patient-reported outcomes scores for both CDA and ACDF. There were no statistical differences in rates of implant-related adverse events (AEs) or serious implant-related AEs between 1-level and 2-level CDA. The 7-year rate of implant-related AEs was higher for 2-level than 1-level ACDF (27.7% vs 18.9%, P ≤ .036), though the rates of serious implant-related AEs between ACDF groups did not differ significantly. Secondary surgery rates were not statistically different between 1-level and 2-level procedures (CDA or ACDF) at the index or adjacent levels at 2 or 7 years. Grade IV heterotopic ossification at 7 years was reported in 4.6% of 1-level CDA patients and 8.6%/7.3% at the superior/inferior levels, respectively, of 2-level CDA patients.ConclusionsOne- and 2-level CDA appear equally safe and effective in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Two-level ACDF appears to be as effective as 1-level ACDF but with a higher rate of some AEs at long-term follow-up.Level of evidence2.Clinical trialsclinicaltrials.gov: NCT00667459, NCT00642876, and NCT00637156.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Operating Time between Stand-alone Cage and a Standard Method for a Single Level Cervical Disc Disease.

Publications

Comparison of Operating Time between Stand-alone Cage and a Standard Method for a Single Level Cervical Disc Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets