Does the Angulation of the Screws in the Zero-P Implant Affect the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Patients?

Abstract

Objective: When implanting the Zero-P device, the screws of Zero-P form a bone wedge with a 40 ± 5° cranial and caudal angle (CCA). However, no study has been performed in the optimal CCA of the Zero-P implant. To investigate whether the cranial/caudal angles (CCA) of the screws affect the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing ACDF with the Zero-P implant.

Methods: From January 2016 to December 2023, we retrospectively analyzed 186 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF with the Zero-P device. The patients were divided into four groups: group A (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°); group B (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle >40°); group C (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle ≤40°); and group D (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°). The clinical outcomes, including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), neck disability index (NDI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, the radiological parameters, including cervical lordosis (CL), cervical lordosis of operated segments (OPCL), intervertebral space height (ISH) and fusion rate (FR), and the complications, were evaluated and compared. Parametric tests, non-parametric tests, and chi-square tests were conducted to analyze the data.

Results: The OPCL of group A was significantly less than that of the other groups at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The ISH of group D was significantly less than that of group A at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The subsidence rate of group A was significantly less than that of group D at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, the upper adjacent-level degeneration (ASD) of group D was significantly less severe than that of groups A and B (p < 0.05). The clinical outcomes do not differ among groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: A larger CCA of the screws (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°) was better for maintaining OPCL and reducing the incidence of ASD. A smaller CCA of the screws (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°) was better for maintaining ISH and reducing the rate of subsidence.

Keywords

ACDF / Cervical degenerative disc disease / Cranial/caudal angles / Zero-P

References

[1] Wang Z, Jiang W, Li X, Wang H, Shi J, Chen J, et al. The application of zero-profile anchored spacer in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(1): 148–154.

[2] Huang CY, Meng Y, Wang BY, Yu J, Ding C, Yang Y, et al. The effect of the difference in C2-7 angle on the occurrence of dysphagia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with the zero-P implant system. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21(1): 649.

[3] Yun DJ, Lee SJ, Park SJ, Oh HS, Lee YJ, Oh HM, et al. Use of a zero-profile device for contiguous 2-level anterior cervical Diskectomy and fusion: comparison with cage with plate construct. World Neurosurg. 2017; 97: 189–198.

[4] Sun B, Shi C, Wu H, Xu Z, Lin W, Shen X, et al. Application of zero-profile spacer in the treatment of three-level cervical Spondylotic myelopathy: 5-year follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020; 45(8): 504–511.

[5] Shi S, Liu ZD, Li XF, Qian L, Zhong GB, Chen FJ. Comparison of plate-cage construct and stand-alone anchored spacer in the surgical treatment of three-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a preliminary clinical study. Spine J. 2015; 15(9): 1973–1980.

[6] Schmieder K, Wolzik-Grossmann M, Pechlivanis I, Engelhardt M, Scholz M, Harders A. Subsidence of the wing titanium cage after anterior cervical interbody fusion: 2-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006; 4(6): 447–453.

[7] Gao X, Yang Y, Liu H, Meng Y, Zeng J, Wu T, et al. A comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients with two-level cervical degenerative disc disease: 5-year follow-up results. World Neurosurg. 2019; 122: e1083–e1089.

[8] Scholz M, Onal B, Schleicher P, Pingel A, Hoffmann C, Kandziora F. Two-level ACDF with a zero-profile stand-alone spacer compared to conventional plating: a prospective randomized single-center study. Eur Spine J. 2020; 29(11): 2814–2822.

[9] Paik H, Kang DG, Lehman RA Jr, Cardoso MJ, Gaume RE, Ambati DV, et al. Do stand-alone interbody spacers with integrated screws provide adequate segmental stability for multilevel cervical arthrodesis? Spine J. 2014; 14(8): 1740–1747.

[10] Li T, Yang JS, Wang XF, Meng CY, Wei JM, Wang YX, 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.

[11] 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.e4.

[12] Noh SH, Zhang HY. Comparison among perfect-C^®, zero-P^®, and plates with a cage in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1): 33.

[13] Yang H, Chen D, Wang X, Yang L, He H, Yuan W. 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.

[14] Borden AG, Rechtman AM, Gershon-Cohen J. The normal cervical lordosis. Radiology. 1960; 74: 806–809.

[15] Li J, Li Y, Kong F, Zhang D, Zhang Y, Shen Y. Adjacent segment degeneration after single-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion: disc space distraction and its impact on clinical outcomes. J Clin Neurosci. 2015; 22(3): 566–569.

[16] Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(20): 2646–2654. discussion 2655.

[17] Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957; 16(4): 494–502.

[18] Wang ZD, Zhu RF, Yang HL, Gan MF, Zhang SK, Shen MJ, et al. The application of a zero-profile implant in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2014; 21(3): 462–466.

[19] Lee YS, Kim YB, Park SW. Risk factors for postoperative subsidence of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: the significance of the preoperative cervical alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(16): 1280–1287.

[20] Liu Y, Wang H, Li X, Chen J, Sun H, Wang G, 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.

[21] Morrison EJ, Litsky AS, Allen MJ, Fosgate GT, Hettlich BF. Evaluation of three human cervical fusion implants for use in the canine cervical vertebral column. Vet Surg. 2016; 45(7): 901–908.

[22] Zhang RJ, Zhou LP, Zhang L, Zhang HQ, Ge P, Jia CY, et al. The rates and risk factors of intra-Pedicular accuracy and proximal facet joint violation for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: cortical bone trajectory versus traditional trajectory pedicle screw. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021; 46(23): E1274–E1282.

[23] Xiong Y, Xu L, Yu X, Yang Y, Zhao D, Hu Z, et al. Comparison of 6-year follow-up result of hybrid surgery and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of contiguous two-segment cervical degenerative disc diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 43(20): 1418–1425.

[24] Di Martino A, Papalia R, Albo E, Cortesi L, Denaro L, Denaro V. Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective? Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(Suppl 7): 810–825.

[25] Hussain M, Natarajan RN, Fayyazi AH, Braaksma BR, Andersson GB, An HS. Screw angulation affects bone-screw stresses and bone graft load sharing in anterior cervical corpectomy fusion with a rigid screw-plate construct: a finite element model study. Spine J. 2009; 9(12): 1016–1023.

[26] Njoku I Jr, Alimi M, Leng LZ, Shin BJ, James AR, Bhangoo S, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a zero-profile integrated plate and spacer device: a clinical and radiological study: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(4): 529–537.

[27] Kim CH, Chung CK, Jahng TA, Park SB, Sohn S, Lee S. Segmental kyphosis after cervical interbody fusion with stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages: a comparative study on 2 different PEEK cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015; 28(1): E17–E24.

[28] Lee CH, Hyun SJ, Kim MJ, Yeom JS, Kim WH, Kim KJ, et al. Comparative analysis of 3 different construct systems for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: stand-alone cage, iliac graft plus plate augmentation, and cage plus plating. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 26(2): 112–118.

[29] Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, Yang L, Yang H, Yuan W, et al. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(7): 1539–1546.

[30] Yang JY, Song HS, Lee M, Bohlman HH, Riew KD. Adjacent level ossification development after anterior cervical fusion without plate fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(1): 30–33.

[31] Li XF, Jin LY, Liang CG, Yin HL, Song XX. Adjacent-level biomechanics after single-level anterior cervical interbody fusion with anchored zero-profile spacer versus cage-plate construct: a finite element study. BMC Surg. 2020; 20(1): 66.

[32] Schleicher P, Gerlach R, Schär B, Cain CM, Achatz W, Pflugmacher R, et al. Biomechanical comparison of two different concepts for stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17(12): 1757–1765.

[33] Song KJ, Taghavi CE, Lee KB, Song JH, Eun JP. The efficacy of plate construct augmentation versus cage alone in anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(26): 2886–2892.

[34] Park MS, Kelly MP, Lee DH, Min WK, Rahman RK, Riew KD. Sagittal alignment as a predictor of clinical adjacent segment pathology requiring surgery after anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine J. 2014; 14(7): 1228–1234.

[35] Faldini C, Pagkrati S, Leonetti D, Miscione MT, Giannini S. Sagittal segmental alignment as predictor of adjacent-level degeneration after a cloward procedure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(3): 674–681.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

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