Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives

Stand-alone (SA) and anterior cage-and-plate (ACP) have been studied in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, fusion assessment methods vary and existing studies are not propensitymatched and often lack patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). We compare fusion rates between propensity-matched single- and multi-level SA versus ACP using a method validated by intraoperative motion testing during revision surgery. We also compare sagittal alignment, perioperative outcomes, and PROMs.

Methods

Patients >18 years who underwent primary ACDF were included. 2:1 propensity score matching was performed. Fusions were assessed using 1 year computer tomography and flexion/extension radiographs via validated fusion assessment methods. ALOD was assessed at least 6-months postoperatively. Sagittal alignment was assessed at preoperative, short-term postoperative (2-6 weeks), and long-term postoperative (6 months or more) time points. PROMs, operative time, blood loss, dysphagia, and complications were analyzed.

Results

153 patients (51 SA) were included after matching. There were no differences in fusion rates overall (P = .662), or by number of surgical levels. There were no differences in ALOD at upper or lower levels, nor was there a difference in ALOD grade. Regarding segmental lordosis, overall lordosis, T1 slope, TS-CL, and PROMs (NDI, SF-12 PCS, VAS neck and arm), there were no differences at preoperative or any postoperative time point. Operative time and blood loss were greater in the ACP cohort, with no differences in complications or postoperative dysphagia.

Conclusions

Fusion rates, PROMs, radiographic outcomes, complications, and dysphagia rates were all comparable following single and multi-level ACDF between SA and ACP.

Keywords

standalone cage plate ACDF PROMs validated outcomes

Introduction

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) can treat cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy by decompressing the spinal cord anteriorly and restoring height of the intervertebral disc.^1,2 ACDFs were originally performed using structural autograft or allograft, but more recently performed utilizing synthetic cages.³ These cages can often be combined with anterior plate and screw fixation to form a cage and plate construct (ACP) that acts as a theoretic tension band.⁴ However, applying an anterior cervical plate may increase operative time, rates of dysphagia, adjacent level ossification development (ALOD), and instrument-related complications.^5-7

Zero-profile standalone interbody constructs (SA) were introduced to avoid complications related to plate placement. SA cages are equipped with internal vertebral anchoring, eliminating the need for anterior plate fixation. Previous studies and meta-analyses have shown that the use of a SA implant can reduce postoperative dysphagia, operative time, and the incidence of adjacent segment changes while maintaining surgical safety and providing similar radiologic alignment outcomes when compared to ACP constructs.^6,8,9 However, such studies have not assessed fusion using previously validated criteria. In fact, assessing successful cervical fusion has been a topic of debate for many years, and numerous methods have been tested^10-13 with varying results in sensitivity, specificity, and agreement between assessors.¹⁴

Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to compare the fusion efficacy, perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of SA vs ACP constructs in single and multi-level ACDF. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare these variables in one-, two-, and three-level propensity-matched SA and ACP ACDFs. We hypothesized that fusion rates between implant types would be equivalent for single-level ACDFs, but that ACP would have superior fusion rates in multi-level ACDFs. We additionally hypothesized that perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and PROMs would be comparable for SA vs ACP.

Materials & Methods

Study Population and Data Collection

Patients (18-80 years old) who underwent primary ACDF by 7 surgeons at a single institution between January 2016 and September 2022 with minimum 1-year postoperative radiographs and/or computed tomography (CT) were included retrospectively. Patients who underwent any concurrent (i.e. posterior cervical fusion or hybrid cervical disc arthroplasty) or revision procedure, or who had osteoarthritis, metabolic bone disease (i.e. osteoporosis), active inflammatory arthritis with radiographic erosive changes, chronic steroid use, stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (eGFR 30 mL/min), or had bone morphogenic protein-2 used during their fusion procedure were excluded. Research Electronic Data Capture system (REDCap) was used for data collection under National Institutes of Health award number UL1 TR002384.¹⁵

Primary Outcome

Fusion was assessed utilizing both radiographic and CT measurements. Patients were deemed to be successfully fused if they either: (1) had fewer than 1 millimeter of interspinous motion per fused level between flexion and extension on 1-year postoperative flexion/extension radiographs,^16,17 or (2) had the presence of 3 CT slices with bridging bone on 1-year postoperative CT scan.¹⁸ The accuracy of these methods has been previously validated via intraoperative motion testing for fusion (or lack thereof) during revision surgery¹⁸ and by rigorous comparison with other available literature.^16,17 Fusions were assessed by third- and fourth-year orthopaedic residents. Fusion rates were compared at 1-year postoperative. Examples of fusion and lack of fusion on flexion/extension radiographs and computed tomography are provided (Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1.

Example of fusion assessment via flexion/extension sagittal radiographs. Radiographic fusion was determined as < 1 mm of interspinous motion per level across all instrumented levels (panel A). Lack of fusion was determined by > 1 mm of interspinous motion per level across all instrumented levels (panel B).

Figure 2.

Example of fusion assessment via computed tomography. Computed tomographic fusion was determined by 3 or more sagittal cuts demonstrating bridging bones across all instrumented levels (red arrowheads, panel C). Example of one-level lack of fusion at C3-4, with lack of bridging bone, is demonstrated (blue arrowheads, panel D).

Secondary Outcomes

Data on operative time, blood loss, dysphagia, and surgical complications were collected. Dysphagia was defined as difficulty, discomfort, or choking while swallowing, or explicit mentioning of “dysphagia” in medical records, on the first postoperative visit (2 weeks or 6 weeks postoperatively) or later; immediate postoperative difficulty swallowing prior to the first postoperative visit was not classified as dysphagia. Dysphagia length of symptoms was based on the last clinic visit mentioning dysphagia symptoms. ALOD assessments for upper (cephalad) and lower (caudal) levels adjacent to the fusion were performed on minimum 6-month postoperative sagittal radiographs. ALOD classification based on severity of adjacent osteophyte development was performed according to prior published literature.¹⁹ On preoperative imaging at the adjacent level, if there was: a prior fusion, pre-existing osteophyte grade 2 or more,¹⁹ or difficult visualization, that level was excluded from ALOD subgroup analysis specifically. Plate-to-disc distance, a confounder of ALOD, was accounted for in ACP but not SA constructs.²⁰ Segmental lordosis, overall lordosis, T1 slope, and T1-slope minus cervical lordosis mismatch (TS-CL) were assessed at preoperative, short-term postoperative (2-week to 6-week), and long-term postoperative (6-month to 2-year) timepoints measured according to available literature.^21-23 The most recent available time-point was used for short-term and long-term follow-up windows. Patients with poorly visible cervical levels on sagittal alignment measurements were excluded. In a subset of patients with available PROMs data, we compared Neck Disability Index (NDI), 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain at preoperative, short-term postoperative (2-week to 6-week), and long-term postoperative (6-month to 2-year) timepoints. Trends in sagittal alignment and PROMs were plotted on line graphs for clearer visualization.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using R statistical software (v4.1.2; R Core Team 2021). 2:1 propensity score matching with age, sex, body mass index (BMI), preoperative Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and number of surgical levels (single or multiple level) was utilized to create matched ACP and SA groups. Continuous and categorical variables were compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Fisher’s exact tests, respectively. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was utilized to compare preoperative sagittal alignment and PROMs with short-term and long-term postoperative alignment and PROMs. A P-value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Propensity Matching

A total of 415 patients (SA = 51; ACP = 353) were identified by our inclusion criteria for possible matching. 153 patients (SA = 51; ACP = 102) were included after 2:1 propensity matching, with no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, CCI, preoperative PROMs, or number of surgical levels (Table 1). There were no patients in either cohort that required blood transfusions.

Table 1.

Demographics, Preoperative PROMs, Perioperative Data After Propensity Score Matching.

	SA (n = 51)	ACP (n = 102)	P-Value
Age (mean + SD)	57.5 ± 10.2	56.6 ± 12.0	.634
Sex (female) (n [%])	20 [39.2]	43 [42.2]	.862
BMI (mean + SD)	27.0 ± 4.5	26.7 ± 4.1	.776
CCI
0 (n [%])	41 [80.4]	83 [81.4]	1.000
1 (n [%])	7 [13.7]	15 [14.7]	1.000
2 (n [%])	2 [3.9]	3 [2.9]	1.000
3 (n [%])	1 [1.9]	1 [1.0]	1.000
Number of surgical levels
1 (n [%])	20 [39.2]	40 [39.2]	1.000
2 (n [%])	23 [45.1]	41 [40.2]	.604
3 (n [%])	8 [15.7]	18 [17.6]	.823
4 (n [%])	0 [0.0]	3 [2.9]	.551
Preoperative (mean + SD) (n)
NDI	35.6 ± 20.1	40.8 ± 22.4	.271
SF12-PCS	35.6 ± 11.1	38.6 ± 9.0	.288
VAS neck	5.0 ± 3.1	5.7 ± 2.8	.322
VAS arm	4.8 ± 3.4	4.9 ± 3.1	.956
Operative time, minutes (mean + SD)	80.9 ± 23.0	124.3 ± 59.5	<.001
Blood loss, mL (mean + SD)	30.3 ± 22.0	47.8 ± 44.0	.001
Transfusions (n [%])	0 [0]	0 [0]	1.000
Complications (n [%])	0 [0]	2 [2.0]	.553
Dysphagia (n [%])	4 [7.8]	12 [11.8]	.581
Dysphagia length of symptoms (weeks)	19 ± 8.1	29.8 ± 20.8	.563

Wilcoxon ranked-sum test and Fisher’s exact test were utilized to compare SA vs ACP cohorts, where appropriate. N = number of individuals included in analyses. SD = standard deviation. Significant P-values are bolded.

Fusion Rate and ALOD

There were no differences in overall fusion rate between SA vs ACP cohorts (78.4% vs 82.4%, respectively; P = .662), nor were there differences in fusion rate for one-level (80.0% vs 87.5%, respectively; P = .464), two-level (78.3% vs 78.0%, respectively, P = 1.000), or three-level fusions (75.0% vs 83.3%, respectively, P = .628) individually (Table 2). In ALOD analysis, due to prior fusion, pre-existing osteophyte grade 2 or more, and/or difficult visualization, 42 patients were dropped from upper-level ALOD analysis and 40 patients were dropped from lower-level ALOD analysis; 111 patients and 113 patients were included for upper- and lower-level ALOD analysis, respectively. Rates of upper-level ALOD (P = .184) and lower-level ALOD (P = .395) were not different between SA vs ACP cohorts. Further, there were no differences in ALOD grade between cohorts. In the ACP cohort, plate-to-disc distance did not have any impact on presence or absence of ALOD.

Table 2.

SA Versus ACP Comparisons of Fusion Rates, ALOD, and Plate-To-Disc Distance.

	SA	ACP		P-value
Fusion rate (n/total [%])
All cases	40/51 [78.4]	84/102 [82.4]		.662
1-level	16/20 [80.0]	35/40 [87.5]		.464
2-level	18/23 [78.3]	32/41 [78.0]		1.000
3-level	6/8 [75.0]	15/18 [83.3]		.628
ALOD (upper) (n/total [%])	3/26 [11.5]	21/85 [24.7]		.184
Grade 1	2/26 [7.7]	17/85 [20.0]		.233
Grade 2	1/26 [3.8]	2/85 [2.4]		.555
Grade 3	0/ [0.0]	2/85 [2.4]		1.000
ALOD (lower) (n/total [%])	3/27 [11.1]	17/86 [19.8]		.395
Grade 1	3/27 [11.1]	8/86 [9.3]		.722
Grade 2	0/27 [0.0]	3/86 [3.5]		1.000
Grade 3	0/27 [0.0]	6/86 [7.0]		.333
		<5 mm	> 5 mm
ALOD with plate-disc <5 mm vs > 5 mm (upper)	NA	8/30 [26.7]	13/53 [24.5]	1.000
ALOD with plate-disc <5 mm vs > 5 mm (lower)	NA	6/32 [18.8]	10/52 [19.2]	1.000

Fisher’s exact test was utilized to compare SA vs ACP cohorts. N = number of individuals included in analyses. Fusions were compared using 1-year postoperative imaging (CT or flexion-extension radiograph).

Changes in Radiographic Alignment

In terms of segmental lordosis, overall lordosis, T1 slope, and TS-CL, there were no differences between SA and ACP at preoperative, short-term postoperative, or long-term postoperative time points (Table 3). Both SA and ACP cohorts saw an increase in segmental lordosis between preoperative and short-term postoperative time points, with a statistically significant increase in segmental lordosis in the ACP cohort from baseline (Table 5, Figure 3). By the long-term timepoint, segmental lordosis was not significantly different from preoperative in either cohort. Changes in overall lordosis from preoperative to postoperative timepoints were not significant in either cohort. Both cohorts saw an increase in TS-CL mismatch at the short-term postoperative timepoint compared to preoperative, however, differences became insignificant in both cohorts by the long-term postoperative timepoint.

Table 3.

SA Versus ACP Preoperative, Short-Term, and Long-Term Postoperative Sagittal Alignment.

	SA	ACP	P-value
Preoperative (mean + SD) (n)
Segmental lordosis	6.5 ± 5.7 (42)	7.5 ± 6.8 (85)	.269
Overall lordosis	13.0 ± 8.6 (42)	12.9 ± 9.4 (85)	.697
T1 slope	24.2 ± 10.6 (42)	26.9 ± 10.4 (85)	.063
TS-CL	11.2 ± 10.3 (42)	14.0 ± 10.6 (85)	.161
Short-term postoperative (mean + SD) (n)
Segmental lordosis	9.3 ± 6.5 (48)	9.5 ± 6.8 (100)	.900
Overall lordosis	11.8 ± 9.0 (48)	13.3 ± 9.3 (100)	.338
T1 slope	26.9 ± 8.3 (48)	29.2 ± 9.6 (100)	.128
TS-CL	15.1 ± 8.9 (48)	15.9 ± 9.9 (100)	.523
Long-term postoperative (mean + SD) (n)
Segmental lordosis	7.6 ± 7.2 (43)	7.7 ± 5.9 (97)	.628
Overall lordosis	12.1 ± 9.7 (43)	12.9 ± 9.2 (97)	.479
T1 slope	25.6 ± 10.9 (43)	28.1 ± 9.1 (97)	.068
TS-CL	13.5 ± 8.7 (43)	15.2 ± 9.5 (97)	.413

Wilcoxon ranked-sum test was utilized to compare SA vs ACP cohorts. N = number of individuals included in analyses. SD = standard deviation.

Figure 3.

Trends in cervical alignment over time. Preoperative, short-term postoperative, and long-term postoperative time points are shown. Black brackets between time points indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05) on Wilcoxon signed rank test. Asterix (*) are color-coded in that blue and orange represent significant P-values for SA and ACP time points, respectively.

PROMs Subset Analyses

When comparing SA and ACP cohorts, there were no significant differences in NDI, SF12-PCS, VAS neck, or VAS arm scores at preoperative or any postoperative timepoint (Table 4). Within the SA cohort, however, there was a significant improvement in short-term NDI, VAS neck, and VAS back (P < .001), which was not seen in the ACP cohort (Table 5, Figure 4). By the long-term postoperative timepoint, both SA and ACP cohorts saw significant improvements in NDI (P = .003, P = .007, respectively), VAS neck (P < .001, P < .001, respectively), and VAS arm (P < .001, P = .004, respectively), however, only SA cohort saw a significant improvement in SF12-PCS (P = .006).

Table 4.

SA Versus ACP Preoperative and Postoperative PROMs.

	SA	ACP	P-value
Preoperative (mean + SD) (n)
NDI	35.6 ± 20.1 (47)	40.8 ± 22.4 (23)	0.271
SF12-PCS	35.6 ± 11.1 (47)	38.6 ± 9.0 (21)	0.288
VAS neck	5.0 ± 3.1 (47)	5.7 ± 2.8 (24)	0.322
VAS arm	4.8 ± 3.4 (47)	4.9 ± 3.1 (24)	0.956
Short-term postoperative (mean + SD) (n)
NDI	24.6 ± 16.7 (47)	32.3 ± 17.6 (15)	0.162
SF12-PCS	36.6 ± 9.0 (46)	39.2 ± 9.0 (12)	0.337
VAS neck	3.0 ± 2.6 (47)	3.6 ± 2.6 (15)	0.404
VAS arm	2.6 ± 2.6 (47)	2.8 ± 2.5 (15)	0.789
Long-term postoperative (mean + SD) (n)
NDI	25.2 ± 24.3 (44)	28.8 ± 23.5 (21)	0.598
SF12-PCS	40.6 ± 12.1 (43)	43.1 ± 11.3 (18)	0.343
VAS neck	2.6 ± 2.8 (44)	3.7 ± 3.0 (20)	0.101
VAS arm	2.0 ± 2.7 (44)	2.7 ± 2.8 (20)	0.268

Wilcoxon ranked-sum test was utilized to compare preoperative and postoperative PROMs in SA vs ACP cohorts. N = number of individuals included in analyses. SD = standard deviation.

Table 5.

Preoperative Versus Postoperative Sagittal Alignment and PROMs.

	Preoperative	Short-Term Postoperative	Long-Term Postoperative
Segmental lordosis (mean + SD) (n)
SA	6.5 ± 5.7 (42)	9.3 ± 6.5 (48) (P = .069)	7.6 ± 7.2 (43) (P = .202)
ACP	7.5 ± 6.7 (85)	9.5 ± 6.8 (100) (P = .006)	7.7 ± 5.9 (97) (P = .768)
Overall lordosis (mean + SD) (n)
SA	13.0 ± 8.6 (42)	11.8 ± 9.0 (48) (P = .645)	12.1 ± 9.7 (43) (P = .494)
ACP	12.9 ± 9.4 (85)	13.3 ± 9.3 (100) (P = .529)	12.9 ± 9.2 (97) (P = .750)
T1 slope (mean + SD) (n)
SA	24.2 ± 10.6 (42)	26.9 ± 8.3 (48) (P = .018)	25.6 ± 10.9 (43) (P = 0.039)
ACP	26.9 ± 10.4 (85)	29.2 ± 9.6 (100) (P = .002)	28.1 ± 9.1 (97) (P = .172)
TS-CL (mean + SD) (n)
SA	11.2 ± 10.3 (42)	15.1 ± 8.9 (48) (P = .038)	13.5 ± 8.7 (43) (P = 0.118)
ACP	14.0 ± 10.6 (85)	15.9 ± 9.9 (100) (P = .107)	15.2 ± 9.5 (97) (P = .276)
NDI (mean + SD) (n)
SA	35.6 ± 20.1 (47)	24.6 ± 16.7 (47) (P < .001)	25.2 ± 24.3 (44) (P = .003)
ACP	40.8 ± 22.4 (23)	32.3 ± 17.6 (15) (P = .400)	28.8 ± 23.5 (21) (P = .007)
SF12-PCS (mean + SD) (n)
SA	35.6 ± 11.1 (47)	36.6 ± 9.0 (46) (P = .626)	40.6 ± 12.1 (43) (P = .006)
ACP	38.6 ± 9.0 (21)	39.2 ± 9.0 (12) (P = .922)	43.1 ± 11.3 (18) (P = .065)
VAS neck (mean + SD) (n)
SA	5.0 ± 3.1 (47)	3.0 ± 2.6 (47) (P < .001)	2.6 ± 2.8 (44) (P < .001)
ACP	5.7 ± 2.8 (24)	3.6 ± 2.6 (15) (P = 0.157)	3.7 ± 3.0 (20) (P < .001)
VAS arm (mean + SD) (n)
SA	4.8 ± 3.4 (47)	2.6 ± 2.6 (47) (P < .001)	2.0 ± 2.7 (44) (P < .001)
ACP	4.9 ± 3.1 (24)	2.8 ± 2.5 (15) (P = .409)	2.7 ± 2.8 (20) (P = .004)

Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare preoperative with short-term and long-term postoperative time points. N = number of individuals included in analyses. SD = standard deviation. Significant P-values are bolded.

Figure 4.

Trends in PROMs over time. Preoperative, short-term postoperative, and long-term postoperative time points are shown. Black brackets between time points indicate a significant difference (P < .05) on Wilcoxon signed rank test. Asterix (*) are color-coded in that blue and orange represent significant P-values for SA and ACP time points, respectively.

Perioperative Outcomes and Complications

Average operative time was shorter in the SA cohort by over 40 minutes (P < .001); average blood loss was also less in the SA cohort (P < .001) (Table 1). There were 2 intraoperative complications in the ACP cohort (durotomy; decreased motor signaling on neuromonitoring) and zero complications in the SA cohort, although differences were not statistically significant (P = .553). There were no significant differences between SA vs ACP cohorts regarding rates of postoperative dysphagia (P = .581) and length of dysphagia symptoms (P = .563)

Discussion

While ACP and SA constructs are both used in ACDF, these approaches may differ regarding biomechanics. In our understanding, no studies currently exist that compare fusion rates following single and multi-level ACP vs SA ACDFs using validated fusion assessment methods in propensity-matched cohorts. Our study found no statistically significant difference in 1-year fusion rates following single and multi-level ACP vs SA ACDFs. Furthermore, there were no differences in long-term PROMs, ALOD, or sagittal alignment. While operative time and blood loss were greater in the ACP cohort, there were no differences in rates of dysphagia or length of dysphagia symptoms.

Although other studies have investigated fusion rates between SA vs ACP, these studies involve a wide variety of assessment methods, including plain and dynamic radiography, CT, and magnetic resonance imaging, with varying degrees of sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement between observers.¹⁴ This study is unique in that it implements a fusion assessment method that has been previously validated by intraoperative motion testing. Importantly, imaging outcomes in this study are also supplemented by PROMs, which provide key clinical insights often lacking in other similar studies.

The current available literature shows similar rates of fusion between SA and ACP cohorts following single-level ACDF. For instance, in a retrospective study of 68 patients, Lan et al reported no significant difference in fusion following single-level SA vs ACP ACDFs, with all patients in both cohorts achieving fusion during follow-up.²⁴ Our study findings corroborate the findings of Lan et al and support the notion that SA cages are comparable to ACP in achieving fusion following single-level ACDF. Additional studies and meta-analyses have reported similar findings in SA vs ACP fusion rates in single-level ACDF.^25,26

Our findings also show no significant difference in fusion rate even after two- and three-level ACDF. This is supported by Chen et al, who reported similar fusion rates between multi-level ACP and SA cohorts even 3-year postoperative.²⁷ While Chen et al was limited by using only radiographs in determining fusion, the extensive follow-up period provides valuable data in assessing longer-term rates of fusion. Our results also demonstrate comparable fusion rates in multi-level ACP and SA cohorts, which is supported by a growing body of literature.^28-31 Importantly, in a separate study by Chen et al of multi-level ACP vs SA ACDFs, both cohorts also experienced improvements in Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores compared to preoperative, with no differences between cohorts.³¹ Our study similarly found that both cohorts improved in all PROMs postoperatively compared to preoperative, with no significant differences in any PROMs at any timepoint, suggesting that in addition to fusion rates, key clinical metrics of pain and functionality are also comparable between multi-level SA and ACP. Indeed, lack of fusion following ACDF may not equate to poor patient outcomes; as seen in Chen et al, even patients with pseudoarthrosis following 3-level ACDF may be asymptomatic and may not require surgical revision.³¹ Therefore, clinical and functional outcomes are important supplements to imaging findings, especially since fusion assessment methods vary widely in sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement between observers, even when gold-standard practices are used.¹⁴

In the literature, various studies report increased ALOD in ACP vs SA constructs following single-level and multi-level ACDF.^7,8,32,33 While our study found that ALOD was approximately twice as common in the ACP cohort, differences were not significant at the upper nor the lower level. Additionally, there were no differences in ALOD severity based on prior classifications,¹⁹ and contrary to the literature,^20,34 there was no significant impact of plate-to-disc distance on ALOD development. While the above studies suggest that ACP increases ALOD, Chen et al did not demonstrate significant differences in adjacent level degenerative changes in ACP vs SA following 3-level ACDF.²⁹ Importantly, the development of ALOD is likely multifactorial, possibly involving changes in biomechanics,^35,36 mobility,^37,38 sagittal alignment,^39,40 and surgeon-specific factors like disruption of the anterior longitudinal ligament.^27,41,42 Given we excluded many patients due to prior adjacent fusion and pre-existing adjacent osteophytic degeneration, decreased sample size and lack of statistical power in ALOD analysis may have also prevented us from detecting significant differences. Further investigations with larger cohorts are needed to elucidate the impact of anterior plating and fusion constructs on development of ALOD.

Our study found no differences in segmental or overall lordosis at preoperative or any postoperative time point between ACP and SA cohorts. Interestingly, when comparing short-term postoperative to preoperative, the ACP cohort achieved a significant increase in segmental lordosis while the SA cohort did not. Perrini et al also showed that ACP constructs may be advantageous in achieving segmental lordosis at 1-year postoperative vs SA.⁴³ In our study, however, both cohorts saw a loss of lordosis at long-term postoperative follow-up, with no differences between cohorts. While various investigations have suggested advantages in lordosis with ACP constructs,^44,45 it remains unclear whether ACP is truly superior to SA regarding lordosis, as other investigations and meta-analyses have shown no difference in segmental and overall lordosis between ACP and SA.^9,46,47 Although loss of lordosis has been associated with postoperative disability and pain,⁴⁸ our study demonstrated preservation of PROMs improvements even at long-term follow-up despite loss of lordosis. This finding again emphasizes the importance of supplementing imaging findings with PROMs as imaging findings alone may not capture the entire clinical picture.

Other factors such as operative time, surgical blood loss, complications, and dysphagia also have important clinical consequences and may differ between ACP and SA. Our study found that the ACP cohort experienced longer operative times and increased blood loss, supporting the existing literature.^49,50 This may be related to decreased instrumentation and surgical dissection required during SA compared to ACP ACDF, the latter requiring additional anterior plating. Surgical complications are another important consideration. Postoperative plate-specific complications may increase proportionally to number of surgical levels, suggesting that procedure invasiveness is related to risk for complications.^4,51 Complications are also dependent on surgeon skill, and in a tertiary care center such as ours with highly-specialized surgeons, complications are quite rare, as was seen in our study. Larger propensity-matched studies are needed to discern differences in complications in single- and multi-level ACP vs SA ACDFs. Another undesirable outcome after ACDF is dysphagia. Various studies have suggested that ACP constructs are associated with higher rates of dysphagia in single and multi-level ACDF.^8,52-54 Other studies, however, have not shown any significant difference in dysphagia after single and multi-level ACDF, even with 3-year follow-up.^27,55,56 While our study did find increased rates of dysphagia and duration of dysphagia symptoms in the ACP cohort, differences were not significant. Importantly, definitions and approaches to measuring dysphagia vary between studies, which may help to explain the lack of agreement across studies. Additionally, while it is believed that the presence of an anterior plate drives the development of dysphagia, the thickness of the anterior plate may also play a role.⁵⁷ Therefore, different ACP models may have varying risks of dysphagia development, which should be considered when comparing ACP vs SA constructs. Larger propensity-matched studies are needed to discern any differences in dysphagia between single- and multi-level ACP vs SA ACDF.

There are several study limitations. One limitation is small sample size due to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and propensity matching. While our criteria reduced the effect of potential confounders to fusion such as osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and inflammatory bone diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, these are common conditions in the general population and many potential candidates were excluded based on these criteria. Additionally, propensity matching helped mitigate potential confounders but decreased sample size. We believe future studies should maintain strict study criteria and propensity matching in order to limit the effect of confounding variables. Furthermore, while we investigated fusion rates at 1 year and secondary outcomes between 6-month and 2 years, longer follow-ups would be beneficial. In a study comparing SA and ACP 3-level ACDFs over a 5-year follow-up period, Sun et al found that both cohorts lost disc height and cervical lordosis by 5 years post-operation.⁵⁸ This suggests that cervical changes following ACDF may occur well past the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, necessitating studies with longer follow-up periods. We recognize that our grouping of 6-month follow-up through 2-year follow-up under “long-term follow-up” is also a limitation, since fusion rates may change during this critical time; the same limitation also applies to ALOD assessments, as bony osteophyte remodeling has been shown to continue even at 2-year postoperative and beyond.⁵⁹ Lack of longer-term follow-up may similarly limit analyses in cervical alignment and PROMs measurements; future studies should aim for longer term analyses when possible. Additionally, it is important to note that cage material, the use of biologics, and the type of biologic may all impact fusion rates.^60-62 Our study was limited in that this data was not available for analyses; furthermore, attending surgeons in our study varied in their choice of cage material and use of biologics. Not only could these decisions affect fusion rates, but also these choices may vary greatly in their economic impact, both to the hospital as well as to the patient. Given that studies have already suggested cost differences between SA vs ACP following ACDF,⁶³ the use of biologics may further complicate the issue of cost-effectiveness versus clinical outcomes. Therefore, in addition to the above recommendations, we believe future studies should incorporate data on construct type, use of biologics, and associated costs into analyses, to better understand these nuances that affect fusion rates as well as healthcare spending. Finally, this study was conducted at a single-institution urban academic center. This may limit the generalizability of study results to a larger and global patient population because patients in this study were more likely to be complex cases requiring an urban tertiary referral center.

Conclusion

This study investigated fusion rates, PROMs, ALOD, sagittal alignment, and perioperative outcomes after single- and multi-level SA vs ACP ACDF using validated fusion assessment criteria in propensity-matched cohorts. We found that both constructs are effective in achieving cervical fusion following single and multi-level ACDF, with no significant differences in dysphagia rates, sagittal alignment, and PROMs with short-term and long-term follow-up. These findings may allow surgeons more flexibility in implant and technique selection based on individual patient characteristics.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Image measurements and data collection: Eric Zhao, Robert Kamil, Austin Kaidi, Tomoyuki Asada, Arsen Omurzakov, Tim Xu, Andrew Kim, Anthony Pajak, Gregory Kazarian, Troy Amen, Jung Mok, Yousi Oquendo, Olatunde Badejo, Nathan Varady, Mitchell Johnson, Bo Zhang. Manuscript writing, revising, and editing: Eric Zhao, Robert Kamil, Austin Kaidi, Tomoyuki Asada, Sravisht Iyer. Statistical analysis: Eric Zhao, Tomoyuki Asada. General project oversight: Mitchell S. Fourman, Sravisht Iyer, James Dowdell, Han Jo Kim, Sheeraz Qureshi.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Sheeraz Qureshi has the following disclosures: AMOpportunities: Other financial or material support; Annals of Translational Medicine: Editorial or governing board; Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Contemporary Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Hospital Special Surgery Journal: Editorial or governing board; HSS and ASC Development Network: Ownership/Equity/Investment; HS2, LLC: Stock or stock Options; International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Lifelink.com: Other financial or material support; Lumbar Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; See All AI: Other financial or material support; Board or committee member; Sustain Surgical, Inc.: Board of Directors, Ownership/Equity/Investment; Simplify Medical, Inc.: Other financial or material support; Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Spinal Simplicity: Other financial or material support; SpineGuard, Inc.: Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Surgalign: Paid consultant; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence: Stock or stock Options; Viseon, Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support; Clinical Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board. Sravisht Iyer has the following disclosures: Bioventus: Paid consultant; Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; HSS and ASC Development Network: Other financial or material support; JEASO: Other financial or material support; Intrinsic Therapeutics Inc.: Other financial or material support; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Vertebral Columns/International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS): Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Ownership/Equity/Investment; Innovasis: Research Support (either personally or through institution). Han Jo Kim has the following disclosures: Alphatec: Consultant; Acuity Surgical: Royalties from Intellectual Property; Aspen Medical Products: Royalties from Intellectual Property; Consultant; Blackstone: Consultant; FOCOS Hospital: Board of Directors; Highridge: Royalties from Intellectual Property; Consultant; HS2, LLC: Ownership/Equity/Investment; International Spine Society Group (ISSG): Research Support (either personally or through HSS); K2 Medical, LLC: Royalties from Intellectual Property; Speakers' Bureau; Manhattan School of Music: Board of Directors; Mirus: Consultant; SI Bone: Consultant; SpineSTUD: Ownership/Equity/Investment. Francis Lovecchio has the following disclosures: Seaspine: Consultant; SI Bone: Consultant. James Dowdell has the following disclosures: Bioventus: Consultant; Cerpedics: Speaker; Globus: Providence Medical: Consultant; Speaker; Stryker/VB spine: Consultant. Mitchell Fourman has the following disclosures: Johnson and Johnson: Consultant. Rest of the authors: None.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: No direct funding was received for this study. However, the study used REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) hosted at Weill Cornell Medicine Clinical and Translational Science Center supported by the National Center For Advancing Translational Science of the National Institute of Health (NIH) under award number: UL1 TR002384.

Drug(s)/Device(s) Statement

This manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s).

ORCID iDs

Austin C. Kaidi

Gregory S. Kazarian

Tomoyuki Asada

Mitchell A. Johnson

Kyle W. Morse

Francis C. Lovecchio

Sravisht Iyer

Sheeraz A. Qureshi

References

Chen

, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile versus stand-alone cages for two-level cervical spondylosis: a retrospective cohort study. Front Surg. 2022;9:1002744. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.1002744

Lei

Gan

, et al. Comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes between the self-locking stand-alone cage and conventional cage-plate construct: a five-year retrospective cohort study. Spine. 2023;48(1):56-66. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004465

Joffre

Vautier

Barat

. [Determinants of participation in a program for diabetes education in children]. Arch Pediatr. 2015;22(6):677-678. doi:10.1016/j.arcped.2015.03.002

Ning

Wen

Xiao-Jian

, et al. Anterior cervical locking plate-related complications; prevention and treatment recommendations. Int Orthop. 2008;32(5):649-655. doi:10.1007/s00264-007-0369-y

Vaishnav

Saville

McAnany

, et al. Predictive factors of postoperative dysphagia in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2019;44(7):E400-E407. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002865

Liu

Yang

Lan

Zhang

Miao

. Changes in cervical alignment of zero-profile device versus conventional cage-plate construct after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):510. doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03400-1

Huang

Mobbs

Selby

Phan

Rao

. Adjacent-level ossification development in single-level standalone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate. Global Spine J. 2021;11(3):292-298. doi:10.1177/2192568220902749

Bao

Wang

, et al. Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): a minimum 2-year follow-up. Medicine. 2018;97(5):e9808. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009808

Kahaer

Chen

Maitusong

Mijiti

Rexiti

. Zero-profile implant versus conventional cage-plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):506. doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03387-9

10.

Park

Rhee

Kim

Enyo

Yoshiok

. Do CT scans overestimate the fusion rate after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(2):41-46. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31829a37ac

11.

Buchowski

Liu

Bunmaprasert

Rose

Riew

. Anterior cervical fusion assessment: surgical exploration versus radiographic evaluation. Spine. 2008;33(11):1185-1191. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318171927c

12.

Cannada

Scherping

Yoo

Jones

Emery

. Pseudoarthrosis of the cervical spine: a comparison of radiographic diagnostic measures. Spine. 2003;28(1):46-51. doi:10.1097/00007632-200301010-00012

13.

Ploumis

Mehbod

Garvey

Gilbert

Transfeldt

Wood

. Prospective assessment of cervical fusion status: plain radiographs versus CT-scan. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;72(3):342-346.

14.

Rhee

Chapman

Norvell

Smith

Sherry

Riew

. Radiological determination of postoperative cervical fusion: a systematic review. Spine. 2015;40(13):974-991. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000940

15.

Harris

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational Research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

16.

Lin

Boddapati

Yuan

Riew

. Diagnosing pseudoarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Neurospine. 2018;15(3):194-205. doi:10.14245/ns.1836192.096

17.

Oshina

Oshima

Tanaka

Riew

. Radiological fusion criteria of postoperative anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2018;8(7):739-750. doi:10.1177/2192568218755141

18.

van Bilsen

MWT

Ullrich

Ferraris

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CT scan-based criteria compared with surgical exploration for the analysis of cervical fusion and nonunion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(1):51-57. doi:10.3171/2019.12.SPINE191011

19.

Park

J-B

Cho

Y-S

Riew

. Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):558-563. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.01555

20.

Lee

D-H

Lee

J-S

Cho

Zebala

Riew

. Anterior cervical plating technique to prevent adjacent-level ossification development. Spine J. 2013;13(7):823-829. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.03.009

21.

Zeng

Duan

Yang

, et al. Anterior corpectomy and reconstruction using dynamic cervical plate and titanium mesh cage for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study. Medicine. 2018;97(5):e9724. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009724

22.

Chen

Wang

Wei

, et al. The importance of preoperative T1 slope for determining proper postoperative C2-7 cobb’s angle in patients undergoing cervical reconstruction. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):507. doi:10.1186/s13018-020-02016-7

23.

Protopsaltis

Terran

Soroceanu

, et al. T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL), the cervical answer to PI-ll, defines cervical sagittal deformity in patients undergoing thoracolumbar osteotomy. Int J Spine Surg. 2018;12(3):362-370. doi:10.14444/5042

24.

Lan

Lin

J-Z

S-Y

Yang

X-J

Chen

. Comparison between zero-profile spacer and plate with cage in the treatment of single level cervical spondylosis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2018;31(2):299-304. doi:10.3233/BMR-169708

25.

Yang

J-S

Wang

X-F

, et al.

Can zero-profile cage maintain the cervical curvature similar to plate-cage construct for single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion?

World Neurosurg. 2020;135:e300-e306. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.153

26.

Zhang

Wang

Tang

, et al. Clinical and radiological comparison of the zero-profile anchored cage and traditional cage-plate fixation in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur J Med Res. 2022;27(1):189. doi:10.1186/s40001-022-00813-w

27.

Chen

Wang

Lin

Yuan

. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between zero-profile implant and cages with plate fixation in treating multilevel cervical spondilotic myelopathy: a three-year follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;144:72-76. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.03.010

28.

Zhang

. Zero-profile anchored spacer versus conventional plate-cage construct in bilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):644. doi:10.1186/s13018-023-04134-4

29.

Chen

Liu

Chen

Cao

Yuan

. Comparison of curvature between the zero-P spacer and traditional cage and plate after 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: mid-term results. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(8):E1111-E1116. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000440

30.

Duan

Yang

Wang

, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with the zero-profile device versus plate and cage in treating cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;33:11-18. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.046

31.

Chen

Lü

Wang

Kuang

. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(7):2255-2262. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4391-x

32.

Zhou

Lin

Dong

Zhou

. Could self-locking stand-alone cage reduce adjacent-level ossification development after aneterior cervical discectomy and fusion? J Clin Neurosci. 2020;78:60-66. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2020.06.014

33.

Yang

Chen

Wang

Yang

Yuan

. Zero-profile integrated plate and spacer device reduces rate of adjacent-level ossification development and dysphagia compared to ACDF with plating and cage system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(6):781-787. doi:10.1007/s00402-015-2212-z

34.

Yang

, et al. Longer plate-to-disc distance prevents adjacent-level ossification development but does not influence adjacent-segment degeneration. Spine. 2022;40(7):E388-E393. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000800

35.

Eck

Humphreys

Lim

T-H

, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine. 2002;27(22):2431-2434. doi:10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003

36.

Maiman

Kumaresan

Yoganandan

Pintar

. Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments. Bio Med Mater Eng. 1999;9(1):27-38.

37.

Baba

Furusawa

Imura

Kawahara

Tsuchiya

Tomita

. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine. 1993;18(15):2167-2173. doi:10.1097/00007632-199311000-00004

38.

Schwab

Diangelo

Foley

. Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go? Spine. 2006;31(21):2439-2448. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000239125.54761.23

39.

Faldini

Pagkrati

Leonetti

Miscione

Giannini

. Sagittal segmental alignment as predictor of adjacent-level degeneration after a cloward procedure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(3):674-681. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1614-z

40.

Faldini

Miscione

Acri

, et al. Single level cervical fusion by an anterior approach using autologous bone graft influences the adjacent levels degenerative changes: clinical and radiographic results at 10-year minimum follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 1):S90-S93. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2215-1

41.

Chung

Park

J-B

Seo

H-Y

Kim

. Adjacent segment pathology after anterior cervical fusion. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(3):582-592. doi:10.4184/asj.2016.10.3.582

42.

Nassr

Lee

Bashir

, et al.

Does incorrect level needle localization during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion lead to accelerated disc degeneration?

Spine. 2009;34(2):189-192. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181913872

43.

Perrini

Cagnazzo

Benedetto

Morganti

Gambacciani

. Cage with anterior plating is advantageous over the stand-alone cage for segmental lordosis in the treatment of two-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;163:27-32. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.10.014

44.

Cheung

Gidumal

White

, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a stand-alone interbody cage versus a conventional cage-plate technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2019;9(4):446-455. doi:10.1177/2192568218774576

45.

Tang

Liu

Zhao

. Clinical and imaging outcomes of self-locking stand-alone cages and anterior cage-with-plate in three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):276. doi:10.1186/s13018-023-03726-4

46.

Boer

LFR

Zorzetto

Yeh

Wajchenberg

Martins

. Degenerative cervical disorder-stand-alone cage versus cage and cervical plate: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2021;11(2):249-255. doi:10.1177/2192568220906173

47.

Nambiar

Phan

Cunningham

Yang

Turner

Mobbs

. Locking stand-alone cages versus anterior plate constructs in single-level fusion for degenerative cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(9):2258-2266. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5015-9

48.

Kwon

W-K

Kim

Ahn

, et al. Analysis of associating factors with C2-7 sagittal vertical Axis after two-level anterior cervical fusion: comparison between plate augmentation and stand-alone cages. Spine. 2017;42(5):318-325. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001776

49.

Liu

Wang

, et al. Comparison of a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with an anterior plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(6):1881-1890. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4500-x

50.

Zhao

Tang

, et al. A comparison of a new zero-profile, stand-alone fidji cervical cage and anterior cervical plate for single and multilevel ACDF: a minimum 2-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(4):1129-1139. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4739-2

51.

Yang

Liang

, et al. Stand-alone anchored spacer versus anterior plate for multilevel anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Orthopedics. 2012;35(10):e1503-e1510. doi:10.3928/01477447-20120919-20

52.

Yang

Zhao

Luo

. Incidence of dysphagia of zero-profile spacer versus cage-plate after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2019;98(25):e15767. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000015767

53.

Zhang

X-B

Yuan

W-H

J-D

, et al. Comparison between zero-profile and cage plate devices in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylopathy. Br J Neurosurg. 2024;38(3):562-567. doi:10.1080/02688697.2021.1923654

54.

Feng

Lan

, et al. A randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes between zero-profile and traditional multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical myelopathy. Spine. 2018;43(5):E259-E266. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002323

55.

Wang

Zhu

Yang

, et al. Zero-profile implant (Zero-p) versus plate cage benezech implant (PCB) in the treatment of single-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(October 12):290. doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0746-4

56.

Mobbs

Fang

Phan

. Clinical outcomes of locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(1):199-208. doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5811-x

57.

Lee

Bazaz

Furey

Yoo

. Influence of anterior cervical plate design on dysphagia: a 2-year prospective longitudinal follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(5):406-409. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000177211.44960.71

58.

Sun

Shi

, et al. Application of zero-profile spacer in the treatment of three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: 5-year follow-up results. Spine. 2020;45(8):504-511. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000003312

59.

Yang

J-Y

Song

H-S

Lee

Bohlman

Riew

. Adjacent level ossification development after anterior cervical fusion without plate fixation. Spine. 2009;34(1):30-33. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318190d833

60.

Hoffmann

Ricciardi

Yurac

, et al. The use of osteobiologics in single versus multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2024;14(2_suppl):110S-119S. doi:10.1177/21925682221136482

61.

Jain

Dhanjani

Harris

, et al. Structural allograft versus mechanical interbody devices augmented with osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2024;14(2_suppl):34S-42S. doi:10.1177/21925682231171857

62.

Onyedimma

Jallow

Yolcu

, et al. Comparison of outcomes between cage materials used for patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with standalone cages: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2022;158:e38-e54. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.084

63.

Lindsey

Xiong

Karhade

, et al. The variability and contributions to cost of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion constructs. Clin Spine Surg. 2023;36(7):E317-E323. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001371

Zero-Profile Stand-Alone Cages Versus Traditional Cage-and-Plate Constructs in Single and Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Propensity-Matched Analysis Using Validated Fusion Assessment Methods

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Materials & Methods

Study Population and Data Collection

Primary Outcome

Secondary Outcomes

Statistical Analysis

Results

Propensity Matching

Fusion Rate and ALOD

Changes in Radiographic Alignment

PROMs Subset Analyses

Perioperative Outcomes and Complications

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

Funding

Drug(s)/Device(s) Statement

ORCID iDs

References