Comparison of the Postoperative Motion Stabilization Between Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion with a Zero-Profile Implant System and a Plate-Cage Construct

Due to the lack of an additional anterior plate, the motion stability of a zero-profile device with an anchored cage (AC) may be inferior to that of a traditional plate-cage construct (PCC). However, the impact of this difference in motion stability on various outcomes has not been fully explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the motion stabilization features of an AC and a PCC and analyse their impact on postoperative outcomes and complications.A retrospective study of patients treated with single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) from January 2008 to May 2016 was performed. First, clinical and radiological outcomes, postoperative complications and time to achieve motion stabilization were compared between the AC and PCC groups. Then, based on the time to achieve motion stabilization, all patients were divided into group A (time to achieve motion stabilization < 3 months), group B (time to achieve motion stabilization from 3-6 months), and group C (time to achieve motion stabilization > 6 months). The early postoperative complications were compared across the three groups. Motion stabilization was measured on dynamic cervical radiographs using the interspinous process method and Cobb angle method according to previously published methods.A total of 160 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 90 patients in the AC group and 70 patients in the PCC group. There were no significant differences between the AC and PCC groups in the clinical outcomes, C2-7 angle change, segmental angle change, final fusion rate or adjacent-level degeneration (p>0.05). The disc height loss was 2.26 ± 1.00 mm in the AC group and 1.76 ± 1.13 mm in the PCC group (p=0.004), and the incidence of implant subsidence was 24.44% in the AC group and 11.43% in the PCC group (p=0.036). In addition, the PCC was more dynamically stable than the AC at 3 months post-surgery (p<0.001), and at this time, the disc height loss and implant subsidence in motion-stable patients were significantly lower than those in motion-unstable patients (p<0.05). Furthermore, our results also showed that when the arrival time of motion stabilization was prolonged, the loss of disc height and occurrence of subsidence gradually increased.More attention should be given to minimizing the adverse impact of poor motion stability in the design and development of future zero-profile cervical implants, although this has little impact on clinical efficacy.