Literature DB >> 25982430

Pseudoarthrosis rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis.

Michael F Shriver1, Daniel J Lewis2, Varun R Kshettry3, Benjamin P Rosenbaum3, Edward C Benzel3, Thomas E Mroz4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a commonly performed procedure for patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, or deformity. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of pseudoarthrosis rates associated with ACDF with plate fixation have not been previously performed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify all prospective studies reporting pseudoarthrosis rates for ACDF with plate fixation. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: This study is based on a systematic review and meta-analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: Studies reporting pseudoarthrosis rates in patients who received one-, two-, or three-level ACDF surgeries were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes of interest included reported pseudoarthrosis events after ACDF with plate fixation.
METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE search for studies reporting complications for ACDF with plate fixation. We recorded pseudoarthrosis events from all included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate effect summary mean values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Q statistics, and I(2) values. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group.
RESULTS: Of the 7,130 retrieved articles, 17 met the inclusion criteria. The overall pseudoarthrosis rate was 2.6% (95% CI: 1.3-3.9). Use of autograft fusion (0.9%, 95% CI: -0.4 to 2.1) resulted in a reduced pseudoarthrosis rate compared with allograft fusion procedures (4.8%, 95% CI: 1.7-7.9). Studies were separated based on the length of follow-up: 12 to 24 and greater than 24 months. These groups reported rates of 3.1% (95% CI: 1.2-5.0) and 2.3% (95% CI: 0.1-4.4), respectively. Studies performing single-level ACDF yielded a rate of 3.7% (95% CI: 1.6-5.7). Additionally, there was a large difference in the rate of pseudoarthrosis in randomized controlled trials (4.8%, 95% CI: 2.6-7.0) versus prospective cohort studies (0.2%, 95% CI: -0.1 to 0.5), indicating that the extent of follow-up criteria affects the rate of pseudoarthrosis.
CONCLUSIONS: This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of pseudoarthrosis across a heterogeneous group of surgeons, patients, and ACDF techniques. The definition of pseudoarthrosis varied significantly within the literature. To ensure its diagnosis and prevent sequelae, standardized criteria need to be established. This investigation sets the framework for surgeons to understand the impact of surgical techniques on the rate of pseudoarthrosis.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACDF; Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Complication; Meta-analysis; Nonunion; Pseudoarthrosis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25982430     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.05.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  40 in total

1.  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

2.  Adjacent segment degeneration and disease following cervical arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Brian Scherman; Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-03

3.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion can restore cervical sagittal alignment in degenerative cervical disease.

Authors:  Han Jo Kim; Byung-Wan Choi; JeaSeok Park; Sebastien Pesenti; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-01-25

4.  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

Review 5.  Degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  So Kato; Michael Fehlings
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

Review 6.  Cervical radiculopathy.

Authors:  Sravisht Iyer; Han Jo Kim
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

Review 7.  [Operative treatment of the degenerative cervical spine].

Authors:  A Tschugg; B Meyer; M Stoffel; P Vajkoczy; F Ringel; S-O Eicker; V Rhode; C Thomé
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 8.  Reoperation After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhao-Ming Zhong; Shi-Yuan Zhu; Jing-Shen Zhuang; Qian Wu; Jian-Ting Chen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19

10.  A radiographic follow-up study of stand-alone-cage and graft-plate constructs for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Joseph F Baker; Jaime Gomez; Kartik Shenoy; Sarah Kim; Afshin Razi; Yong Kim
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.