See the published version of this preprint at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Xuesong Zhu
First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Zero-profile anchored cage (ZP) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate?
Methods
We performed a meta-analysis of studies which compared the subsidence rate of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematical search covered Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analysed by RevMan 5.3 software.
Results
Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in ZP group was significantly higher than with CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multi-level surgery. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate and cervical aligment in the final followup between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia at each follow-up time than the ZP group.
Conclusion
ZP had a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP. Although there was a high occurrence of swallowing discomfort, we are more agreed that the anterior plate should be used in multi-level surgery as far as possible to reduce the subsidence and adverse clinical symptoms in the long term.
Keywords
Anterior fusion, Cervical degenerative disease, Zero-profile device, Subsidence, Meta-analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 31 Mar, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 31 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 15 Mar, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Feb, 2020
Version 1
Posted 26 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 23 Jan, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 09 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 19 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Xuesong Zhu
First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 31 Mar, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 31 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 15 Mar, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Feb, 2020
Version 1
Posted 26 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 23 Jan, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 09 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Dec, 2019
First submitted
On 19 Dec, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
Background
Zero-profile anchored cage (ZP) has been widely used for its lower occurrence of dysphagia. However, it is still controversial whether it has the same stability as the cage-plate construct (CP) and increases the incidence of postoperative subsidence. We compared the rate of subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with ZP and CP to determine whether the zero-profile device had a higher subsidence rate?
Methods
We performed a meta-analysis of studies which compared the subsidence rate of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematical search covered Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analysed by RevMan 5.3 software.
Results
Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in ZP group was significantly higher than with CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In subgroup analysis, we found that the definition of subsidence did not affect the higher subsidence rate in the ZP group. Considering the quantity of operative segments, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence between the two groups after single-level fusion (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61-3.37, P = 0.41). However, the subsidence rate of the ZP group was significantly higher than the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multi-level surgery. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate and cervical aligment in the final followup between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia at each follow-up time than the ZP group.
Conclusion
ZP had a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP. Although there was a high occurrence of swallowing discomfort, we are more agreed that the anterior plate should be used in multi-level surgery as far as possible to reduce the subsidence and adverse clinical symptoms in the long term.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Loading...