Clinical and radiological features of @entity8625 in XXXX .

@entity1 @entity3799 @entity8625 @entity179 @entity3040
PURPOSE: Although several studies have established the safety and efficacy of @entity3799 ( @entity3799 ) as compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), few studies have investigated the role of @entity8625 ( @entity8625 ) that incorporates ACDF and @entity3799 techniques in @entity179 ( @entity179 ). METHODS: This prospective study enrolled @entity1 with @entity179 who underwent @entity8625 . Twenty consecutive @entity1 who underwent @entity8625 were compared with @entity1 who underwent ACDF and @entity3799 at the same level of surgery. @entity1 were followed up for more than 2  years. Intraoperative parameters, clinical features and outcome scores were recorded. Radiological assessments included overall range of motion (ROM), disc height (DHI), and changes in adjacent disc spaces. RESULTS: Duration of surgery was significantly shorter for ACDF compared with @entity8625 and @entity3799 (P  <  0.05). The VAS, SF-36, JOA, and @entity3040 scores improved significantly after surgery in all the @entity1 without significant differences among the groups. Cervical ROM increased significantly in @entity3799 and @entity8625 groups as compared with ACDF-treated @entity1 (P  <  0.05). The mean DHI at the treated level was significantly restored after surgery in all the groups. The @entity8625 group returned to work faster (30  days) when compared with both ACDF (62  days) and @entity3799 (65  days) (P  <  0.05). CONCLUSION: @entity8625 is an effective, reliable, and safe procedure for the treatment @entity179 . Such a surgical construct is comparable to ACDF and @entity3799 in terms of safety and feasibility. However, large, randomized controlled trials are warranted.
