The Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion Using a Stand-Alone Implant Versus Traditional Interbody Polyetheretherketone Cage, Titanium Plate, and Screw Instrumentation

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2023-11, Vol.15 (11), p.e49246-e49246
• Main Authors: Alhammoud, Abduljabbar, Korytkowski, Paul D, Lavelle, William F, Tallarico, Richard A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biomechanics; Cohort analysis; Dysphagia; Hospitals; Length of stay; Otolaryngology; Patients; Surgery; Titanium; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49246

Anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) is the standard surgical procedure for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, although ACDF includes risks of adjacent segment disease (ASD) and subsequent revision procedures. Various interbody cage, plate, and screw options can be utilized. Stand-alone devices were designed to overcome undesired complications of hardware prominence and associated dysphagia, soft tissue violation, and adjacent level encroachment. Implants include biomechanical structural support (cage) composed of various materials (polyetheretherketone (PEEK)/titanium) and integral fixation (screws/blades). The purpose was to compare intraoperative, short- and long-term outcomes of revision ACDF using a stand-alone implant (ACDF-ZP group) versus traditional interbody PEEK cage, titanium plate, and screw instrumentation (ACDF-CP group). This was a retrospective, cohort study reviewing charts of patients who underwent revision ACDF. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative dysphagia. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative, short-term, and long-term outcomes and complications. Sixty-one patients were included (ACDF-ZP group = 50; ACDF-CP group = 11). In-hospital incidence of dysphagia was significantly less in the ACDF-CP group (P = 0.041). Thrity-one (62.0%) of the ACDF-ZP group reported dysphagia postoperatively, half resolved by 6 weeks, and two persisted for more than 6 months. Five (45.5%) of the ACDF-CP group reported dysphagia with most resolving within 6 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in short- or long-term complications, dysphonia, or reoperation rates. No statistical significance was seen in blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, local and global alignment, or cage subsidence. Rates of dysphagia were comparable between groups at short and long-term follow-up, despite a greater incidence of postoperative dysphagia in the ACDF-ZP group. All complications and occurrences of cage subsidence were observed in the ACDF-ZP group, which may be attributed to the larger sample size. Given these findings, zero-profile stand-alone implants and traditional interbody PEEK cage, titanium plate, and screw instrumentation appear to be both safe and effective options for revision ACDF.