Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2022; 17(02): 209-217
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750837
Original Article

Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer (ROI-C) in the Treatment of Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease

Prasert Iampreechakul
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Prasat Neurological Institute, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Punproom Choochaimangkhala
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Prasat Neurological Institute, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Wuttipong Tirakotai
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Prasat Neurological Institute, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Sunisa Hangsapruek
2   Department of Neuroradiology, Prasat Neurological Institute, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Pimchanok Puthkhao
3   Department of Medical Services, Prasat Neurological Institute, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Adisak Tanpun
4   Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Phichit Hospital, Phichit, Thailand
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Self-locking stand-alone cages have increasingly been used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) cervical degenerative disc disease. We studied clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C)–assisted ACDF without anterior plate fixation in cervical adjacent segment disease.

Materials and Methods Fifteen patients suffering from cervical adjacent segment disease with various symptoms, such as radiculopathy, myelopathy, or both, were retrospectively evaluated. The cervical adjacent segment disease was confirmed by plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging. The patients underwent radiological evaluation to assess cervical curvature, intervertebral height, fusion, and subsidence. Clinical assessment was graded using a visual analog scale, Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score, and the Neck Disability Index.

Results There were 19 levels of operation. Single-level ACDF was performed in 11 patients and two level in 4 patients. In the postoperative period, our study revealed significant improvement in the clinical outcome. The cervical curvature and intervertebral height were significantly improved at 12-months follow-up (p < 0.05). The fusion rate was 100%, whereas subsidence occurred in 5.3% but produced no symptoms. Of the 19 operated segment, 2 (5.3%) from 38 VerteBRIDGE plates had breakage. There was only one case of mild dysphagia, which resolved in less than 2 weeks.

Conclusion This study indicates that zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) in the treatment of cervical adjacent segment disease provides improvement of clinical outcomes, restoration of lordosis, high fusion rate, and low incidence of dysphagia. However, subsidence and breakage of VerteBRIDGE plate occurred in 5.3% cases, but did not cause clinical symptoms.

Keywords

cervical PEEK cage - cervical interbody cage - zero-profile anchored spacer - ROI-C - adjacent segment disease - self-locking stand-alone cage


Publication History

Article published online:
25 August 2022

© 2022. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958; 40-A (03) 607-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 1958; 15 (06) 602-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bishop RC, Moore KA, Hadley MN. Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg 1996; 85 (02) 206-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sawin PD, Traynelis VC, Menezes AH. A comparative analysis of fusion rates and donor-site morbidity for autogeneic rib and iliac crest bone grafts in posterior cervical fusions. J Neurosurg 1998; 88 (02) 255-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Matgé G. Cervical cage fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2002; 144 (06) 539-549 , discussion 550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pavlov PW. Anterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (Suppl. 02) S188-S194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wang Z, Jiang W, Li X. et al. The application of zero-profile anchored spacer in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (01) 148-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY, Liu JT, Chiu CL, Sheu PC. Preliminary experience using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (06) 1343-1349 , discussion 1349–1350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cho DY, Lee WY, Sheu PC. Treatment of multilevel cervical fusion with cages. Surg Neurol 2004; 62 (05) 378-385 , discussion 385–386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Riley III LH, Skolasky RL, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR, Heller JG. Dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion: prevalence and risk factors from a longitudinal cohort study. Spine 2005; 30 (22) 2564-2569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Aryan HE, Lu DC, Acosta Jr FL, Hartl R, McCormick PW, Ames CP. Bioabsorbable anterior cervical plating: initial multicenter clinical and radiographic experience. Spine 2007; 32 (10) 1084-1088
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bagby GW. Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics 1988; 11 (06) 931-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (05) 513-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Iampreechakul P, Srisawat C, Tirakotai W. Stand-alone cervical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage (cervios) for single to two-level degenerative disc disease. J Med Assoc Thai 2011; 94 (02) 185-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barbagallo GM, Romano D, Certo F, Milone P, Albanese V. Zero-P: a new zero-profile cage-plate device for single and multilevel ACDF. A single institution series with four years maximum follow-up and review of the literature on zero-profile devices. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (Suppl. 06) S868-S878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Son DK, Son DW, Kim HS, Sung SK, Lee SW, Song GS. Comparative study of clinical and radiological outcomes of a zero-profile device concerning reduced postoperative dysphagia after single level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2014; 56 (02) 103-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bucci MN, Oh D, Cowan RS. et al. The ROI-C zero-profile anchored spacer for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: biomechanical profile and clinical outcomes. Med Devices (Auckl) 2017; 10: 61-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lu Y, Bao W, Wang Z. et al. Comparison of the clinical effects of zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and conventional cage-plate construct for the treatment of noncontiguous bilevel of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD): A minimum 2-year follow-up. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (05) e9808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Profeta G, de Falco R, Ianniciello G, Profeta L, Cigliano A, Raja AI. Preliminary experience with anterior cervical microdiscectomy and interbody titanium cage fusion (Novus CT-Ti) in patients with cervical disc disease. Surg Neurol 2000; 53 (05) 417-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Scoring system for cervical myelopathy. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 1994; 68: 490-503
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14 (07) 409-415
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lonjon N, Favreul E, Huppert J, Lioret E, Delhaye M, Mraidi R. Clinical and radiological outcomes of a cervical cage with integrated fixation. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98 (03) e14097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Grasso G, Giambartino F, Tomasello G, Iacopino G. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with ROI-C peek cage: cervical alignment and patient outcomes. Eur Spine J 2014; 23 (Suppl. 06) 650-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?. Spine J 2004; 4 (6, Suppl): 190S-194S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81 (04) 519-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Park JB, Cho YS, Riew KD. Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (03) 558-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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 (01) 66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zhou J, Li J, Lin H, Li X, Zhou X, Dong J. A comparison of a self-locking stand-alone cage and anterior cervical plate for ACDF: minimum 3-year assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018; 170: 73-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hofstetter CP, Kesavabhotla K, Boockvar JA. Zero-profile anchored spacer reduces rate of dysphagia compared with ACDF with anterior plating. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (05) E284-E290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Luo J, Huang S, Gong M, Li L, Yu T, Zou X. Two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages with two anchoring clips placed in the upper and lower vertebrae, respectively. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015; 25 (Suppl. 01) S147-S153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Liu Y, Wang H, Li X. 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 (06) 1881-1890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Nakamura T. Stand-alone interbody cage versus anterior cervical plate for treatment of cervical disc herniation: sequential changes in cage subsidence. J Clin Neurosci 2008; 15 (09) 1017-1022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zhang J, Liu H, Bou EH. et al. Comparative study between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with ROI-C cage and laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy without spinal stenosis. World Neurosurg 2019; 121: e917-e924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chen Y, Lü G, Wang B, Li L, Kuang L. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (07) 2255-2262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Zhou J, Li X, Dong J. et al. Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages. J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18 (11) 1505-1509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sun Z, Liu Z, Hu W, Yang Y, Xiao X, Wang X. Zero-profile versus cage and plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a minimum 2 years of follow-up: a meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2018; 120: e551-e561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar