Clinical outcomes for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with silicon nitride spine cages: a multicenter study
| Autor: | Graham C. Calvert, Micah W. Smith, B. Sonny Bal, George VanBuren Huffmon, Bryan J. McEntire, William M. Rambo |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
business.industry Visual analogue scale Medical record Retrospective cohort study Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion Surgery 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Multicenter study medicine Original Study Orthopedics and Sports Medicine 030212 general & internal medicine Clinical efficacy business Complication Adverse effect 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Spine Surgery. 5:504-519 |
| ISSN: | 2414-4630 2414-469X |
| DOI: | 10.21037/jss.2019.11.17 |
| Popis: | BACKGROUND: Intervertebral spacers made of silicon nitride (Si(3)N(4)) are currently used in cervical and thoracolumbar fusion. While basic science data demonstrate several advantages of Si(3)N(4) over other biomaterials, large-scale clinical results on its safety and efficacy are lacking. This multicenter retrospective study examined outcomes for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using Si(3)N(4) cages. Results were compared to compiled metadata for other ACDF materials. METHODS: Pre-operative patient demographics, comorbidities, changes in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, complications, adverse events, and secondary surgical interventions were collected from the medical records of 860 patients who underwent Si(3)N(4) ACDF at four surgical centers. For comparison, MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar searches were performed for ACDF using other cage or spacer materials. Nine studies with 13 cohorts and 736 patients met the inclusion criteria for this control group. RESULTS: Overall, the mean last-follow-up for all patients was 319±325 days (10.6±10.8 months), with the longest follow-up being 6.5 years. In comparison to the metadata, patients from the Si(3)N(4) groups were older (57.9±12.2 vs. 56.8±11.1 y, P=0.06) and had higher BMI values (30.0±6.3 vs. 28.1±6.5, P |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|