In a retrospective cohort study we compared the clinical outcome and complications, including dysphagia, following anterior cervical fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylosis using either a zero-profile (Zero-P; Synthes) implant or an anterior cervical plate and cage. A total of 83 patients underwent fusion using a Zero-P and 107 patients underwent fusion using a plate and cage. The mean follow-up was 18.6 months (. sd. 4.2) in the Zero-P group and 19.3 months (. sd. 4.1) in the plate and cage group. All patients in both groups had significant symptomatic and neurological improvement. There were no significant differences between the groups in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analogue scores at final follow-up. The cervical alignment improved in both groups. There was a higher incidence of dysphagia in the plate and cage group on the day after surgery and at two months post-operatively. All patients achieved fusion and no graft migration or nonunion was observed. When compared with the traditional anterior cervical plate and cage, the Zero-P implant is a safe and convenient procedure giving good results in patients with symptomatic cervical spondylosis with a reduced incidence of dysphagia post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:543–7

Determine the detection rate of modern spinal implants using the current technology. There is a paucity of data regarding detection rates of modern spinal implants using modern walk-through pulsed archway metal detectors (AMDs). No published reports compare detection capability with hand-held metal detectors (HHMDs). ex-vivo & in-vivo comparison of detection rates using AMD & HHMD (set to maximum DoT sensitivities), in patients of varying Body Mass Index (BMI), implants, implant mass/density and alloys. 40 patients with: lumbar disc replacement (CoCr) (n=8), cervical disc replacement (CoCr) (1), posterior deformity instrumentation (17), anterior deformity instrumentation (2), anterior reconstruction (2), PLIF (6), interspinous distraction device (1), anterior cervical plate (2) ALIF (1), All implants were titanium unless indicated. Mean metal mass was 98g (range 6g-222g). The AMD did not detect any instrumentation individually or in combination up to a titanium mass totalling 215g. The HHMD detected all instrumentation at a distance of 5cm; with the minimum mass being 2g. No implants were detected in patients by the AMD. The HHMD did not detect any anterior lumbar or thoracic surgical implants. It detected anterior cervical implants. The HHMD detected all posterior surgical implants. There was no significant relationship between detection, BMI, total metal mass, and metal density/segment. AMD detectors do not detect modern spinal implants. HHMD detect all modern posterior spinal implants; this has implications for patient documentation

We evaluated the efficacy of anterior fusion alone compared with combined anterior and posterior fusion for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis. Anterior fusion alone was undertaken in 15 patients (group A) and combined anterior and posterior fusion was carried out in a further 15 (group B). The degree and maintenance of the angle of correction, the incidence of graft subsidence, degeneration at adjacent levels and the rate of fusion were assessed radiologically and clinically and the rate of complications recorded. The mean angle of correction in group B was significantly higher than in group A (p = 0.0009). The mean visual analogue scale and the neck disability index in group B was better than in group A (p = 0.043, 0.0006). The mean operation time and the blood loss in B were greater than in group A (p < 0.0001, 0.037). Pseudarthrosis, subsidence of the cage, and problems related to the hardware were more prevalent in group A than in group B (p = 0.034, 0.025, 0.013).

Although the combined procedure resulted in a longer operating time and greater blood loss than with anterior fusion alone, our results suggest that for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis the combined approach leads to better maintenance of sagittal alignment, a higher rate of fusion, a lower incidence of complications and a better clinical outcome.