Literature DB >> 24335631

Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Kushagra Verma1, Sapan D Gandhi, Mitchell Maltenfort, Todd J Albert, Alan S Hilibrand, Alexander R Vaccaro, Kristin E Radcliff.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the reported incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) requiring surgical intervention between anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) and total disc arthroplasty (TDA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The concern for ASD has led to the development of motion-preserving technologies such as TDA. To date, however, no known study has sought to compare the incidence of ASD between ACDF and TDA in major prospective studies.
METHODS: A systematic review of IDE and non-IDE trials was performed using PubMed and Cochrane libraries. These databases were thoroughly searched for prospective randomized studies comparing ACDF and TDR. Six studies met the inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis and were used to report an overall rate of ASD for both ACDF and TDA.
RESULTS: Pooling data from 6 prospective studies, the overall sample size at baseline was 1586 (ACDF = 777, TDA = 809) and at the final follow-up was 1110 giving an overall follow-up of 70%. Patients after an ACDF had a lower rate of follow-up overall than those after TDR (ACDF: 67.3% vs. TDR: 72.6%, P= 0.01). Thirty-six patients required adjacent-level surgery after an ACDF at 2 to 5 years of follow-up (6.9%) compared with 30 patients after a TDA (5.1%). The corresponding reoperation rate for ASD was 2.4 ± 1.7% per year for ACDF versus 1.1 ± 1.5% per year for TDR. These differences were not statistically significant (P= 0.44). Using a Kaplan-Meier analysis and historical data, we expect 48 patients in the ACDF group and 55 patients in the TDR group to have symptomatic disease at an adjacent level.
CONCLUSION: From a meta-analysis of prospective studies, there is no difference in the rate of ASD for ACDF versus TDA. We also report an overall lower rate of follow-up for patients with ACDF than for those with TDR. Future prospective studies should continue to focus on excellent patient follow-up and accurate assessment of patient symptoms that are attributable to an adjacent level as this has been an under-reported finding in prospective studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24335631     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000052

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


  38 in total

1.  Advanced Multi-Axis Spine Testing: Clinical Relevance and Research Recommendations.

Authors:  Timothy P Holsgrove; Nikhil R Nayak; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

2.  [Spinal column: implants and revisions].

Authors:  S M Krieg; H S Meyer; B Meyer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Higher reoperation rate following cervical disc replacement in a retrospective, long-term comparative study of 715 patients.

Authors:  Martin Skeppholm; Thomas Henriques; Tycho Tullberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Ranges of Cervical Intervertebral Disc Deformation During an In Vivo Dynamic Flexion-Extension of the Neck.

Authors:  Yan Yu; Haiqing Mao; Jing-Sheng Li; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Liming Cheng; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li; Thomas D Cha
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.097

Review 5.  Adjacent level disease-background and update based on disc replacement data.

Authors:  I David Kaye; Alan S Hilibrand
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 6.  Cervical disc replacement - emerging equivalency to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Aaron J Buckland; Joseph F Baker; Ryan P Roach; Jeffrey M Spivak
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  [Degenerative cervical spine diseases: fusion vs. total disc replacement : What can be done when?]

Authors:  T Pitzen; J Drumm; C Berthold; G Ostrowski; U Heiler; M Ruf
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 8.  Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials.

Authors:  Kristen Radcliff; Sean Siburn; Hamadi Murphy; Barrett Woods; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 9.  Cervical disc replacement surgery: indications, technique, and technical pearls.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Joshua Meaike; Kris Radcliff; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

10.  Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Prestige LP Disc Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Seven-Year Outcomes.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; J Kenneth Burkus; Mark E Shaffrey; Hui Nian; Frank E Harrell
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.