Comparison of outcomes between Zero-p implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion systems for anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose The clinical outcomes of using a zero-profile for anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with anterior cervical plates. Methods All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, EBSOChost, and EMBASE databases as of 1 October 2021 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4. Results Seven randomized controlled studies were included with a total of 528 patients, and all studies were randomized controlled studies. The meta-analysis outcomes indicated that the use of zero-profile fixation for anterior cervical decompression and fusion was better than anterior cervical plate fixation regarding the incidence of postoperative dysphagia (P < 0.05), adjacent-level ossification (P < 0.05), and operational time (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale, Neck Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (all P > 0.05) between the zero-profile and anterior cervical plate groups. Conclusions The systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that zero-profile and anterior cervical plates could result in good postoperative outcomes in anterior cervical decompression and fusion. No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale, Neck Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale. However, the zero-profile is superior to the anterior cervical plate in the following measures: incidence of postoperative dysphagia, adjacent-level ossification, and operational time. PROSPERO registration CRD42021278214.

Automated summary

The clinical outcomes of using a zero-profile for anterior cervical decompression and fusion were compared with anterior cervical plates. The results showed that the zero-profile fixation was better in terms of postoperative dysphagia, adjacent-level ossification, and operational time. However, there were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two groups.