RESUMO
Background: The academia has increasingly acknowledged the superior biomechanical performance of the hybrid fixation technique in recent years. However, there is a lack of research on the hybrid fixation technique using BCS (Bilateral Cortical Screws) and BMCS (Bilateral Modified Cortical Screws). This study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of the BCS and BMCS hybrid fixation technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L4-L5 segment in a complete lumbar-sacral finite element model. Methods: Three cadaver specimens are used to construct three lumbar-sacral finite element models. The biomechanical properties of various fixation technologies (BCS-BCS, BMCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BCS-BMCS) are evaluated at the L4-5 segment with a TLIF procedure conducted, including the range of motion (ROM) of the L4-5 segment, as well as the stress experienced by the cage, screws, and rods. The testing is conducted under specific loading conditions, including a compressive load of 400 N and a torque of 7.5Nm, subjecting the model to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation. Results: No significant variations are seen in the ROM at the L4-5 segment when comparing the four fixation procedures during flexion and extension. However, when it comes to lateral bending and rotation, the ROM is ordered in descending order as BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BMCS, and BMCS-BCS. The maximum stress experienced by the cage is observed to be highest within the BMCS-BCS technique during movements including flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Conversely, the BMCS-BMCS technique exhibits the highest cage stress levels during rotational movements. The stress applies to the screws and rods order the sequence of BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BMCS-BMCS throughout all four working conditions. Conclusion: The BMCS-BCS technique shows better biomechanical performance with less ROM and lower stress on the internal fixation system compared to other fixation techniques. BMCS-BMCS technology has similar mechanical performance to BMCS-BCS but has more contact area between screws and cortical bone, making it better for patients with severe osteoporosis.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with the Zero-profile (Zero-p) were evaluated in comparison with the anterior cervical cage-plate construct (CPC). METHODS: We performed a systematic search covering PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (NCKI), Wan Fang Database, and Wei Pu Database. Articles focused on single-level ACDF or data of the single - level that can be extracted were included, and articles that did not directly compare Zero-p and CPC were excluded. Twenty-seven studies were included with a total of 1866 patients, 931 in the Zero-p group and 935 in the CPC group. All outcomes were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4. RESULTS: The meta-analysis outcomes indicated that operative time (WMD = - 12.47, 95% CI (- 16.89, - 8.05), P < 0.00001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = - 13.30, 95% CI (- 18.83, - 7.78), P < 0.00001), risk of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) (OR 0.31, 95% CI (0.20, 0.48), P < 0.0001), risk of dysphagia of short-term (OR 0.40, 95% CI (0.30, 0.54), P < 0.0001), medium-term (OR 0.31, 95% CI (0.20, 0.49), P < 0.0001), and long-term (OR 0.29, 95% CI (0.17, 0.51), P < 0.0001) of Zero-p group were significantly lower. The JOA score of Zero-p group at the final follow-up was significantly higher (WMD = - 0.17, 95% CI (- 0.32, - 0.03), P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in length of stay (LOS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analogue Score (VAS), fusion rate, segmental Cobb angle, cervical Cobb angle, prevertebral soft tissue thickness (PSTT), SF-36, subsidence, implant failure, and hoarseness between the two groups. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022347146. CONCLUSION: Zero-p group reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss, JOA score at follow-up and reduced the incidence of dysphagia and postoperative ASD, but the two devices had the same efficacy in restoring the cervical curvature, preventing the cage subsidence, and in postoperative VAS, NDI, LOS, PSTT, SF-36, fusion rate, implant failure, and hoarseness in single-level ACDF. The use of Zero-p in single-level ACDF was recommended.
