(2024). Dynamic Cervical Implant versus Cervical Interbody Cage Fusion in Management of Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 94(1), 1109-1126. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2024.346923
. "Dynamic Cervical Implant versus Cervical Interbody Cage Fusion in Management of Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease". The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 94, 1, 2024, 1109-1126. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2024.346923
(2024). 'Dynamic Cervical Implant versus Cervical Interbody Cage Fusion in Management of Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease', The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 94(1), pp. 1109-1126. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2024.346923
Dynamic Cervical Implant versus Cervical Interbody Cage Fusion in Management of Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2024; 94(1): 1109-1126. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2024.346923
Dynamic Cervical Implant versus Cervical Interbody Cage Fusion in Management of Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease
Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the most widely used method for the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) because of its positive fusion rate and patient self-assessment outcomes. Objectives: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes following dynamic cervical implant and cervical interbody cage fusion in management of single degenerative cervical disc disease. Patients and Methods: This study included 30 randomized consecutive prospective patients suffering from degenerative cervical disc who were surgically treated by anterior cervical discectomy. Fifteen patients were treated with anterior cervical discectomy and cage interbody fusion and fifteen patients were treated with anterior cervical discectomy and dynamic cervical implant at the Neurosurgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University and Neurosurgery Department of Alexandria Police Hospital. Results: Mean symptom duration was 9.20±15.0 months in the dynamic cervical implant (DCI) group and 14.20±13.36 months in the cervical cage fusion group. Preoperative scores in the DCI group were moderate in 11 patients (73.3%) and severe in 4 patients (26.7%), while postoperative scores were zero in 6 patients (40.0%), mild in 8 patients (53.3%), and moderate in 1 patient (6.7%). Both groups' improvements in mJOA score and decreases in pain as measured by the VAS were statistically significant. Conclusions: Dynamic cervical implant appears promising as an alternative to anterior cervical cage fusion, both DCI and cervical cage fusion groups showed similar results, and both appear to be viable options for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease.
View on SCiNiTO
Top