Comparative efficacy of zero-profile implant and conventional cage-plate implant in the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Peng Zhang,Hongyu Zheng,Jun Luo,Jie Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04729-5
IF: 2.6
2024-06-21
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Abstract:In recent years, the zero-profile implant (Zero-p) has emerged as a promising internal fixation technique. Although studies have indicated its potential superiority over conventional cage-plate implant (Cage-plate) in the treatment of degenerative cervical spondylosis, there remains a lack of definitive comparative reports regarding its indications, safety, and efficacy.
orthopedics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem this paper attempts to address is the comparison of the efficacy and safety of Zero-profile implants (Zero-p) versus traditional cage-plate implants (Cage-plate) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative cervical disease. Although existing studies suggest that Zero-p may be superior to Cage-plate in certain aspects, there is currently a lack of clear comparative reports on their indications, safety, and efficacy. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide reliable data support for clinicians through a comprehensive analysis of existing clinical studies, enabling them to make more informed choices in actual practice. Specifically, the paper focuses on the following aspects: 1. **Surgery time**: Comparing the differences in surgery time between the two implants. 2. **Intraoperative blood loss**: Evaluating the differences in intraoperative blood loss between the two implants. 3. **Incidence of postoperative dysphagia**: Analyzing the incidence of dysphagia at different postoperative time points (e.g., within 1 month postoperatively, 1-3 months postoperatively, and at final follow-up) between the two implants. 4. **Incidence of postoperative adjacent segment degeneration**: Comparing the incidence of postoperative adjacent segment degeneration between the two implants. 5. **Clinical outcomes**: Including comparisons of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, surgical segment fusion rates, postoperative adjacent vertebral height, and postoperative subsidence rates. Through a comprehensive analysis of these aspects, the paper hopes to provide clinicians with comprehensive evidence to guide them in making more scientific and reasonable decisions when choosing surgical methods for the treatment of single-segment degenerative cervical disease.