Literature DB >> 22885834

Kinematics of the cervical adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Paul A Anderson1, Rick C Sasso, John Hipp, Daniel C Norvell, Annie Raich, Robin Hashimoto.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the kinematics of the adjacent segments and global cervical spine after cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adjacent segment pathology after ACDF is a significant concern. Arthroplasty may decrease the risk of adjacent segment degeneration by maintaining normal spinal kinematics compared with fusion. However, the differences in the in vivo kinematics of the adjacent segments after cervical fusion versus arthroplasty have not been clearly established.
METHODS: A systematic literature review of studies comparing adjacent segment kinematic changes between fusion and arthroplasty was performed. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared cervical arthroplasty with ACDF in adults with degenerative disease and reported on at least 1 outcome of interest. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model where appropriate. The standardized mean difference of changes from baseline to follow-up between treatment groups was determined. Recommendations were made using Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.
RESULTS: We identified 12 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials, 4 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study that evaluated kinematic measurements at the adjacent segments or the global cervical spine (C2-C7) after cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF. We found no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the change in range of motion (ROM) at the cranial or caudal adjacent segments from baseline to 2 years of follow-up. However, there was low evidence that the global cervical spine (C2-C7) had significantly greater change in ROM after arthroplasty compared with ACDF: patients had a greater angular ROM as measured up to 2 years after arthroplasty. We found no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the change in the horizontal or vertical centers of rotation at the adjacent segments as measured up to 2 years after surgery. Regarding sagittal alignment, the cranial and caudal adjacent segments both became significantly more lordotic after arthroplasty compared with fusion at 1 to 2 years after surgery. However, there was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the change in global cervical sagittal alignment from baseline to 2 years. CONCLUSION.: There is no statistically or clinically significant difference in the adjacent segment ROM or centers of rotation after cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF. However, the change in sagittal alignment at the cranial and caudal adjacent segments was significantly more lordotic after arthroplasty compared with fusion. In addition, although we found that there was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the change in global cervical (C2-C7) sagittal alignment, there was a significantly greater change in the angular ROM of the cervical spine at up to 2 years after arthroplasty than occurred after fusion. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: Patients can be advised that single-level arthroplasty and ACDF result in clinically similar kinematic changes at short-term follow-up. Strength of Statement: Strong.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22885834     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d6628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  20 in total

1.  Dynamic cervical stabilization: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Guy Matgé; Peter Buddenberg; Marcus Eif; Holger Schenke; Joerg Herdmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Cochrane in CORR®: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Nathan Evaniew; Kim Madden; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Differential segmental motion contribution of single- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Andy Chien; Dar-Ming Lai; Shwu-Fen Wang; Chih-Hsiu Cheng; Wei-Li Hsu; Jaw-Lin Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Kinematics of cervical segments C5/C6 in axial rotation before and after total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Martin Michael Wachowski; Jan Weiland; Markus Wagner; Riccardo Gezzi; Dietmar Kubein-Meesenburg; Hans Nägerl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: biomechanical properties, postoperative motion, and postoperative activity levels.

Authors:  Alfred Pisano; Melvin Helgeson
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

6.  Cervical total disc replacement (TDR).

Authors:  Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt; Salah Khalifah; Melanie Liem; Johannes Holz; Alf Giese
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery.

Authors:  Yahya A Othman; Ravi Verma; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

8.  Correlation between cervical lordosis and adjacent segment pathology after anterior cervical spinal surgery.

Authors:  Soo Eon Lee; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun Jib Kim
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Motion path of the instant center of rotation in the cervical spine during in vivo dynamic flexion-extension: implications for artificial disc design and evaluation of motion quality after arthrodesis.

Authors:  William Anderst; Emma Baillargeon; William Donaldson; Joon Lee; James Kang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases.

Authors:  Michael P Kelly; Claire D Eliasberg; Max S Riley; Remi M Ajiboye; Nelson F SooHoo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-03-31       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.