首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF): Comparison Between Zero Profile Implants and Anterior Cervical Plate and Spacer
【2h】

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF): Comparison Between Zero Profile Implants and Anterior Cervical Plate and Spacer

机译:颈前路椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF):零剖面植入物与颈前路板和垫片之间的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Introduction: Interposition grafts combined with anterior plating currently remain the gold standard for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The use of anterior plates increases fusion rates but may be associated with higher rates of postoperative dysphagia. The aim of the current study was to determine the clinical and radiological outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using zero-profile anchored spacers versus standard interposition grafts with anterior plating.Methods: This was a retrospective case series. A total of 53 male and 51 female consecutive patients (164 total operated levels) who underwent ACDF between 2007 and 2011 were included. The mean clinical follow-up was 15.7 ± 1.2 (SEM) months for patients with zero-profile implants and 14.8 ± 2.1 months for patients with conventional ACDF with anterior plating. Patient demographics, operative details, clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic imaging were reviewed. Dysphagia was determined using the Bazaz criteria.Results: Clinical outcome scores improved in both groups as measured by the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association and Nurick scores. Zero-profile constructs gave rise to significantly less prevertebral soft tissue swelling compared to constructs with anterior plates postoperatively (15.74 ± 0.52 as compared to 20.48 ± 0.85 mm, p < 0.001) and at the latest follow-up (10.88 ± 0.39 mm vs. 13.72 ± 0.67 mm, p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the incidence of dysphagia at the latest follow-up (1.5% vs. 20%, p=0.001, zero-profile vs. anterior plate, respectively).Conclusion: Zero-profile implants lead to functional outcomes similar to standard anterior plate constructs. Avoiding the use of an anterior locking plate may decrease the risk of persistent postoperative dysphagia.
机译:简介:介入移植结合前路钢板目前仍是颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合术的金标准。使用前板可提高融合率,但可能与术后吞咽困难的发生率更高有关。本研究的目的是确定颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF)的临床应用和影像学结果,方法是采用零剖面锚定垫片与标准前板间置植骨术。方法:这是一项回顾性病例系列。纳入2007年至2011年间接受ACDF治疗的53例男性和51例女性连续患者(总手术水平164例)。零轮廓植入物的平均临床随访时间为15.7±1.2(SEM)个月,而常规ACDF并使用前板的患者的平均临床随访时间为14.8±2.1个月。回顾了患者的人口统计学,手术细节,临床结局,并发症和影像学检查。使用Bazaz标准确定吞咽困难。结果:通过修改后的日本骨科协会和Nurick评分来衡量,两组的临床结局评分均得到改善。与术后采用前板的构造相比,零剖面构造引起的椎前软组织肿胀明显减少(15.74±0.52,相比于20.48±0.85 mm,p <0.001),并且在最近的随访中(10.88±0.39 mm vs. 13.72±0.67毫米,p <0.001)。最近一次随访中吞咽困难的发生率有显着差异(分别为1.5%与20%,p = 0.001,零轮廓与前板比较)结论:零轮廓植入物导致的功能结果相似到标准的前板构造。避免使用前锁板可能会降低术后持续吞咽困难的风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号