Hwee Weng Dennis Hey1, Choon Chiet Hong, Ai Sha Long, Hwan Tak Hee. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, National University Singapore, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore, Singapore. hwee_weng_hey@nuhs.edu.sg
Abstract
PURPOSE: Few studies have investigated the role of hybrid surgery (HS) that incorporates anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and artificial disc replacement (ADR) techniques. To our knowledge, this is the first study that provides a direct comparison of all three groups in terms of intra-operative parameters and outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. METHODS: Seven consecutive patients who underwent HS were matched with another seven patients who underwent ACDF and ADR based on levels of surgery. Prospective data on demographics, pre-operative and post-operative assessments, complications and functional scores (VAS, NDI, EQ-5D health score and index) were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test. Type I error was set at 5 %. RESULTS: Duration of surgery was significantly shorter for ACDF at 135 min (p = 0.025) compared with HS and ADR. ACDF also had greater blood loss when compared with ADR (p < 0.036). ADR has the shortest duration of hospitalization followed by HS and ACDF (p < 0.031). The HS group returned to work fastest (54 days) when compared with both ACDF (107 days) and ADR (73 days) with statistical significance seen between HS and ACDF (p = 0.035). Cervical range of motion (ROM) and functional scores did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSION: HS is comparable to ACDF and ADR in terms of safety and feasibility. Findings of shorter in-hospital stay and earlier return to work in HS group may be further explored in large, randomised controlled trials.
PURPOSE: Few studies have investigated the role of hybrid surgery (HS) that incorporates anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and artificial disc replacement (ADR) techniques. To our knowledge, this is the first study that provides a direct comparison of all three groups in terms of intra-operative parameters and outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. METHODS: Seven consecutive patients who underwent HS were matched with another seven patients who underwent ACDF and ADR based on levels of surgery. Prospective data on demographics, pre-operative and post-operative assessments, complications and functional scores (VAS, NDI, EQ-5D health score and index) were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test. Type I error was set at 5 %. RESULTS: Duration of surgery was significantly shorter for ACDF at 135 min (p = 0.025) compared with HS and ADR. ACDF also had greater blood loss when compared with ADR (p < 0.036). ADR has the shortest duration of hospitalization followed by HS and ACDF (p < 0.031). The HS group returned to work fastest (54 days) when compared with both ACDF (107 days) and ADR (73 days) with statistical significance seen between HS and ACDF (p = 0.035). Cervical range of motion (ROM) and functional scores did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSION:HS is comparable to ACDF and ADR in terms of safety and feasibility. Findings of shorter in-hospital stay and earlier return to work in HS group may be further explored in large, randomised controlled trials.
Authors: Frank M Phillips; Michael N Tzermiadianos; Leonard I Voronov; Robert M Havey; Gerard Carandang; Andrew Dooris; Avinash G Patwardhan Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christoph Mehren; Petr Suchomel; Frank Grochulla; Pavel Barsa; Petra Sourkova; Jan Hradil; Andreas Korge; H Michael Mayer Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Joshua D Auerbach; Kristofer J Jones; Christian I Fras; Jessica R Balderston; Scott A Rushton; Kingsley R Chin Journal: Spine J Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: K Daniel Riew; Jacob M Buchowski; Rick Sasso; Thomas Zdeblick; Newton H Metcalf; Paul A Anderson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: John G Heller; Rick C Sasso; Stephen M Papadopoulos; Paul A Anderson; Richard G Fessler; Robert J Hacker; Domagoj Coric; Joseph C Cauthen; Daniel K Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Daniel Murrey; Michael Janssen; Rick Delamarter; Jeffrey Goldstein; Jack Zigler; Bobby Tay; Bruce Darden Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-06 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Giuseppe M V Barbagallo; Roberto Assietti; Leonardo Corbino; Giuseppe Olindo; Pietro V Foti; Vittorio Russo; Vincenzo Albanese Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Victor M Lu; Lucy Zhang; Daniel B Scherman; Prashanth J Rao; Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 3.134