Does Screw Number of Zero-profile Implants in Fusion Segment Influence Intervertebral Stability?

Abstract

Objective: The unclear clinical outcomes of two different zero-profile implants with different number of screws in hybrid surgery restricts the choice of patient-specific implants. This study aims to compare two different implants on its postoperative subsidence, motion stabilization and clinical outcomes. It also provides references to the most reasonable implant choice in fusion surgery.

Methods: This was a retrospective study. From February 2014 to March 2022, 173 patients who underwent hybrid surgery were included. Among them, 122 received surgery with a four screw implant, while 51 received a two screw implant. We analyzed the significance of patient-specific factors, radiographic factors and clinical outcomes. The Wilcoxon rank sum test, t tests/analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and stepwise multivariate logistic regression were adopted for statistical analysis.

Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the two screw and four screw groups in terms of immediate, middle, and long-term stability and fusion rate (p > 0.05). However, the two screws group had higher FSU height subsidence at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and higher rates of significant subsidence at three and 6 months postoperatively (p < 0.05). Both groups showed significant clinical improvements at the final follow-up.

Conclusion: Two screw and four screw implants provide comparable stability, fusion rates and clinical outcomes. However, the two screw implant was inferior to the four screw implant in subsidence prevention. Therefore, the two-screw implant is non-inferior to the four-screw implant in most patients. It can be used as the priority choice in the fusion segment by its easy manageability. However, the patients with a high risk of subsidence such as multilevel surgery, the elderly, lower BMD, bad cervical alignment should receive a four screw implant rather than a two screw implant.

Keywords

Hybrid surgery / Pseudarthrosis / Screws number / Stabilization / Subsidence / Zero profile

References

[1] Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine. 2015; 40: E675–E693.

[2] Tetreault L, Goldstein CL, Arnold P, Harrop J, Hilibrand A, Nouri A, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: a Spectrum of related disorders affecting the aging spine. Neurosurgery. 2015; 77(Suppl 4): S51–S67.

[3] Chen SR, LeVasseur CM, Pitcairn S, Munsch MA, Couch BK, Kanter AS, et al. In vivo evidence of early instability and late stabilization in motion segments immediately superior to anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine. 2022; 47: 1234–1240.

[4] Gebremariam L, Koes BW, Peul WC, Huisstede BM. Evaluation of treatment effectiveness for the herniated cervical disc: a systematic review. Spine. 2012; 37: E109–E118.

[5] Peng Z, Liu L, Sheng X, Liu H, Ding C, Wang B, et al. Risk factors of nonfusion after anterior cervical decompression and fusion in the early postoperative period: a retrospective study. Orthop Surg. 2023; 15: 2574–2581.

[6] González-Darder JM. Development of the anterior cervical postdiscectomy arthrodesis: bone graft, plate, intersomatic cage and plate-cage. Neurocirugia. 2006; 17: 140–147.

[7] Xu J, He Y, Li Y, Lv GH, Dai YL, Jiang B, et al. Incidence of subsidence of seven intervertebral devices in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a network meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020; 141: 479–489.e474.

[8] Stein MI, Nayak AN, Gaskins RB 3rd, Cabezas AF, Santoni BG, Castellvi AE. Biomechanics of an integrated interbody device versus ACDF anterior locking plate in a single-level cervical spine fusion construct. Spine J. 2014; 14: 128–136.

[9] Arnold PM, Cheng I, Harris JA, Hussain MM, Zhang C, Karamian B, et al. Single-level in vitro kinematic comparison of novel inline cervical interbody devices with intervertebral screw, anchor, or blade. Global Spine J. 2019; 9: 697–707.

[10] Reis MT, Reyes PM, Crawford NR. Biomechanical assessment of anchored cervical interbody cages: comparison of 2-screw and 4-screw designs. Neurosurgery. 2014; 10(Suppl 3): 412–417.

[11] Wei Z, Zhang Y, Yang S, Cai C, Ye J, Qiu H, et al. Retrospective analysis of sagittal balance parameters and clinical efficacy after short-segment anterior cervical spine surgery with different fusion devices. Int J Gen Med. 2022; 15: 3237–3246.

[12] Pinter ZW, Mikula A, Shirley M, Xiong A, Michalopoulos G, Ghaith AK, et al. Risk factors for allograft subsidence following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. World Neurosurg. 2023; 170: e700–e711.

[13] Jin C, Wang Z, Liu P, Liu Y, Wang Z, Xie N. A biomechanical analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion alone or combined cervical fixations in treating compression-extension injury with unilateral facet joint fracture: a finite element study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22: 938.

[14] Wu TK, Meng Y, Wang BY, Hong Y, Rong X, Ding C, et al. Is the behavior of disc replacement adjacent to fusion affected by the location of the fused level in hybrid surgery? Spine J. 2018; 18: 2171–2180.

[15] Yang JJ, Park S, Park S. Comparison between selective caudal fixed screw construct and all variable screw construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 10573.

[16] Lee NJ, Vulapalli M, Park P, Kim JS, Boddapati V, Mathew J, et al. Does screw length for primary two-level ACDF influence pseudarthrosis risk? Spine J. 2020; 20: 1752–1760.

[17] Yi YY, Xu HW, Zhang SB, Hu T, Wang SJ, Wu DS. Does the C3/4 disc play a role in cervical spondylosis with dizziness? A retrospective study. Int Orthop. 2020; 44: 1159–1168.

[18] Dhar UK, Menzer EL, Lin M, Hagerty V, O’Connor T, Tsai CT, et al. Factors influencing cage subsidence in anterior cervical corpectomy and discectomy: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2023; 32: 957–968.

[19] Shen YW, Yang Y, Liu H, Qiu Y, Li M, Ma LT, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of intervertebral fusion process after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10: 842382.

[20] Ouyang P, Li J, He X, Dong H, Zang Q, Li H, et al. Biomechanical comparison of 1-level Corpectomy and 2-level discectomy for cervical Spondylotic myelopathy: a finite element analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2020; 26: e919270.

[21] Ledet EH, Sanders GP, DiRisio DJ, Glennon JC. Load-sharing through elastic micro-motion accelerates bone formation and interbody fusion. Spine J. 2018; 18: 1222–1230.

[22] Lin M, Shapiro SZ, Doulgeris J, Engeberg ED, Tsai CT, Vrionis FD. Cage-screw and anterior plating combination reduces the risk of micromotion and subsidence in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion-a finite element study. Spine J. 2021; 21: 874–882.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.