Michael F Shriver1, Daniel Lubelski2, Akshay M Sharma3, Michael P Steinmetz4, Edward C Benzel4, Thomas E Mroz5. 1. School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 2109 Adelbert Rd., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. Electronic address: mfs82@case.edu. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins University, 1800 Orleans St., Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 2109 Adelbert Rd., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Center for Spine Health, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 5. Center for Spine Health, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical arthroplasty is an increasingly popular alternative for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. This technique preserves motion at the index and adjacent disc levels, avoiding the restraints of fusion and potentially minimizing adjacent segment pathology onset during the postoperative period. PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify all prospective studies reporting adjacent segment pathology rates for cervical arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Studies reporting adjacent segment degeneration (ASDegeneration) and adjacent segment disease (ASDisease) rates in patients who underwent cervical arthroplasty comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes of interest included reported ASDegeneration and ASDisease events after cervical arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science search for studies reporting ASDegeneration or ASDisease following cervical arthroplasty. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate effect summary values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Q values, and I(2) values. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. RESULTS: Of the 1,891 retrieved articles, 32 met inclusion criteria. The patient incidence of ASDegeneration and ASDisease was 8.3% (95% CI 3.8%-12.7%) and 0.9% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), respectively. The rate of ASDegeneration and ASDisease at individual levels was 10.5% (95% CI 6.1%-14.9%) and 0.2% (95% CI -0.1% to 0.5%), respectively. Studies following patients for 12-24 months reported a 5.1% (95% CI 2.1%-8.1%) incidence of ASDegeneration and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1%-0.2%) incidence of ASDisease. Conversely, studies following patients for greater than 24 months reported a 16.6% (5.8%-27.4%) incidence of ASDegeneration and 2.6% (95% CI 1.0%-4.2%) of ASDisease. This identified a statistically significant increase in ASDisease diagnosis with lengthier follow-up. Additionally, 1- and 2-level procedures resulted in a 7.4% (95% CI 3.3%-11.4%) and15.6% (95 CI-9.2% to 40.4%) incidence of ASDegeneration, respectively. Although there was an 8.2% increase in ASDegeneration following 2-level operations (relative to 1-level), it did not reach statistical significance. We were unable to analyze ASDisease incidence following 2-level arthroplasty (too few cases), but 1-level operations resulted in an ASDisease incidence of 0.8% (95% CI 0.1%-1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of ASDegeneration and ASDisease across a heterogeneous group of surgeons, patients, and arthroplasty techniques. Our investigation should serve as a framework for individual surgeons to understand the impact of various cervical arthroplasty techniques, follow-up duration, and surgical levels on the incidence of ASDegeneration and ASDisease during the postoperative period.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical arthroplasty is an increasingly popular alternative for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. This technique preserves motion at the index and adjacent disc levels, avoiding the restraints of fusion and potentially minimizing adjacent segment pathology onset during the postoperative period. PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify all prospective studies reporting adjacent segment pathology rates for cervical arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Studies reporting adjacent segment degeneration (ASDegeneration) and adjacent segment disease (ASDisease) rates in patients who underwent cervical arthroplasty comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes of interest included reported ASDegeneration and ASDisease events after cervical arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science search for studies reporting ASDegeneration or ASDisease following cervical arthroplasty. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate effect summary values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Q values, and I(2) values. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. RESULTS: Of the 1,891 retrieved articles, 32 met inclusion criteria. The patient incidence of ASDegeneration and ASDisease was 8.3% (95% CI 3.8%-12.7%) and 0.9% (95% CI 0.1%-1.7%), respectively. The rate of ASDegeneration and ASDisease at individual levels was 10.5% (95% CI 6.1%-14.9%) and 0.2% (95% CI -0.1% to 0.5%), respectively. Studies following patients for 12-24 months reported a 5.1% (95% CI 2.1%-8.1%) incidence of ASDegeneration and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1%-0.2%) incidence of ASDisease. Conversely, studies following patients for greater than 24 months reported a 16.6% (5.8%-27.4%) incidence of ASDegeneration and 2.6% (95% CI 1.0%-4.2%) of ASDisease. This identified a statistically significant increase in ASDisease diagnosis with lengthier follow-up. Additionally, 1- and 2-level procedures resulted in a 7.4% (95% CI 3.3%-11.4%) and15.6% (95 CI-9.2% to 40.4%) incidence of ASDegeneration, respectively. Although there was an 8.2% increase in ASDegeneration following 2-level operations (relative to 1-level), it did not reach statistical significance. We were unable to analyze ASDisease incidence following 2-level arthroplasty (too few cases), but 1-level operations resulted in an ASDisease incidence of 0.8% (95% CI 0.1%-1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of ASDegeneration and ASDisease across a heterogeneous group of surgeons, patients, and arthroplasty techniques. Our investigation should serve as a framework for individual surgeons to understand the impact of various cervical arthroplasty techniques, follow-up duration, and surgical levels on the incidence of ASDegeneration and ASDisease during the postoperative period.
Authors: Pierce D Nunley; Eubulus J Kerr; David A Cavanaugh; Phillip Andrew Utter; Peter G Campbell; Rishi Wadhwa; Kelly A Frank; Kyle E Marshall; Marcus B Stone Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: David Christopher Kieser; Derek Thomas Cawley; Cecile Roscop; Simon Mazas; Pierre Coudert; Louis Boissiere; Ibrahim Obeid; Jean-Marc Vital; Vincent Pointillart; Olivier Gille Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 3.134