What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the outcomes of the Zero-P VA device against the plate-cage construct in cervical discectomy.

April 19, 2026Open Access

Outcome evaluation of the zero-profile device comprising two integrated variable angle screws used for single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison with the plate-cage construct

Key Points

To evaluate the outcomes of the Zero-P VA device against the plate-cage construct in cervical discectomy.
Retrospective review of 101 consecutive patients undergoing single-level ACDF
Comparison between Zero-P VA device (50 cases) and PCC (51 cases)
Assessment of clinical outcomes using VAS and JOA scores
Evaluation of radiological outcomes through lateral cervical x-ray films
Significant improvements in VAS and JOA scores in both groups
Zero-P VA device showed lesser segmental angle and anterior height at 3 and 12 months compared to PCC
Higher rate of segmental kyphosis in Zero-P VA group at 12-month follow-up (12% vs. 0%)
Fusion rates were similar between both groups

Abstract

Background Zero-P VA device is a unique zero-profile device comprising only two integrated variable-angle screws which may provide inferior mechanical stability compared with other types of devices. There is a lack of comprehensive clinical and radiological evidence comparing the plate-cage construct (PCC) and the Zero-P VA device in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent single-level ACDF using either the Zero-P VA device (50 cases) or the PCC (51 cases). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Radiological outcomes were assessed using standard lateral cervical x-ray films. Data were recorded preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at 3- and 12-month follow-up visits. Results VAS and JOA scores, cervical alignment, segmental angle, and surgical segment height were all significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. However, in the Zero-P VA group, the segmental angle and anterior height of the surgical segment at 3 and 12 months decreased significantly compared with immediate postoperative values and were significantly lower than those observed in the PCC group. The rate of segmental kyphosis was significantly higher in the Zero-P VA group at the 12-month follow-up (12% vs. 0%, p 0.05), while fusion rates were comparable. Conclusion The Zero-P VA device provides short-term clinical outcomes comparable to those of the PCC for single-level ACDF. However, it is associated with inferior radiological outcomes, specifically greater loss of segmental lordosis and anterior surgical segment height. The surgeon's choice of implant therefore involves a clinical trade-off between the established surgical advantages of a zero-profile system and the superior radiological stability offered by the PCC.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper