Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis
Background: The 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 that compared the subsidence rates of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematic search covered the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software.
Results: Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in the ZP group was significantly higher than that in the CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In the 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 that of the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multilevel (≥ 2-level) procedures. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate or cervical alignment in the final follow-up between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia than the ZP group at each follow-up time.
Conclusion: Based on the limited evidence, we suggest that ZP has a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP, although with elevated swallowing discomfort. A high-quality, multi-center randomized controlled trial is required to validate our results in the future.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Posted 13 Apr, 2020
On 11 Apr, 2020
On 07 Apr, 2020
On 06 Apr, 2020
On 06 Apr, 2020
Received 31 Mar, 2020
On 31 Mar, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Mar, 2020
On 29 Mar, 2020
On 23 Mar, 2020
On 22 Mar, 2020
On 22 Mar, 2020
Received 15 Mar, 2020
On 15 Mar, 2020
Received 13 Mar, 2020
On 02 Mar, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Feb, 2020
On 29 Feb, 2020
On 24 Feb, 2020
On 23 Feb, 2020
On 23 Feb, 2020
On 23 Jan, 2020
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Received 16 Jan, 2020
On 09 Jan, 2020
On 08 Jan, 2020
On 04 Jan, 2020
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2020
On 02 Jan, 2020
On 01 Jan, 2020
On 23 Dec, 2019
On 19 Dec, 2019
Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis
Posted 13 Apr, 2020
On 11 Apr, 2020
On 07 Apr, 2020
On 06 Apr, 2020
On 06 Apr, 2020
Received 31 Mar, 2020
On 31 Mar, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Mar, 2020
On 29 Mar, 2020
On 23 Mar, 2020
On 22 Mar, 2020
On 22 Mar, 2020
Received 15 Mar, 2020
On 15 Mar, 2020
Received 13 Mar, 2020
On 02 Mar, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Feb, 2020
On 29 Feb, 2020
On 24 Feb, 2020
On 23 Feb, 2020
On 23 Feb, 2020
On 23 Jan, 2020
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Received 16 Jan, 2020
On 09 Jan, 2020
On 08 Jan, 2020
On 04 Jan, 2020
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2020
On 02 Jan, 2020
On 01 Jan, 2020
On 23 Dec, 2019
On 19 Dec, 2019
Background: The 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 that compared the subsidence rates of ZP and CP. An extensive and systematic search covered the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines and identified ten articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Relevant clinical and radiological data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software.
Results: Ten trials involving 626 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of postoperative subsidence in the ZP group was significantly higher than that in the CP group [15.1% (89/588) vs. 8.8% (51/581), OR = 1.97 (1.34, 2.89), P = 0.0005]. In the 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 that of the CP group (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.40, P = 0.0003) after multilevel (≥ 2-level) procedures. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, JOA score, NDI score, fusion rate or cervical alignment in the final follow-up between the two groups. In addition, the CP group had a longer operation time and a higher incidence of dysphagia than the ZP group at each follow-up time.
Conclusion: Based on the limited evidence, we suggest that ZP has a higher risk of postoperative subsidence than CP, although with elevated swallowing discomfort. A high-quality, multi-center randomized controlled trial is required to validate our results in the future.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12