Shihua Zou1, Junyi Gao1, Bin Xu2, Xiangdong Lu3, Yongbin Han3, Hui Meng1. 1. First Clinical Medical College of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China. 2. Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Jie fang nan lu Street, Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China. zsh877816@126.com. 3. Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Jie fang nan lu Street, Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been considered as a gold standard for symptomatic cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which may result in progressive degeneration of the adjacent segments. The artificial cervical disc was designed to reduce the number of lesions in the adjacent segments. Clinical studies have demonstrated equivalence of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in single segment cervical disc degeneration. But for two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which kind of treatment method is better is controversial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical effects requiring surgical intervention between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) at two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO and EMBASE. We identified that six reports meet inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction from archives. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, six papers were included in meta-analyses. The overall sample size at baseline was 650 patients (317 in the TDR group and 333 in the ACDF group). The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the CDA patients had significant superiorities in mean blood loss (P < 0.00001, standard mean differences (SMD) = -0.85, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = -1.22 to -0.48); reoperation (P = 0.0009, risk ratio (RR) = 0.28, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.13-0.59), adjacent segment degeneration (P < 0.00001, risk ratio (RR) = 0.48, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.40-0.58) and Neck Disability Index (P = 0.002, SMD = 0.31, 95 % CI = 0.12-0.50). No significant difference was identified between the two groups regarding mean surgical time (P = 0.84, SMD = -0.04, 95 % CI = -0.40 to 0.32), neck and arm pain scores (P = 0.52, SMD = 0.06, 95 % CI = -0.13 to 0.25) reported on a visual analog scale and rate of postoperative complications [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79; 95 % CI = 0.50-1.25; P = 0.31]. The CDA group of sagittal range of motion (ROM) of the operated and adjacent levels, functional segment units (FSU) and C2-7 is superior to ACDF group by radiographic data of peroperation, postoperation and follow-up. CONCLUSION: We can learn from this meta-analysis that the cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) group is equivalent and in some aspects has more significant clinical outcomes than the ACDF group at two contiguous levels CDD.
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been considered as a gold standard for symptomatic cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which may result in progressive degeneration of the adjacent segments. The artificial cervical disc was designed to reduce the number of lesions in the adjacent segments. Clinical studies have demonstrated equivalence of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in single segment cervical disc degeneration. But for two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which kind of treatment method is better is controversial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical effects requiring surgical intervention between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) at two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO and EMBASE. We identified that six reports meet inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction from archives. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, six papers were included in meta-analyses. The overall sample size at baseline was 650 patients (317 in the TDR group and 333 in the ACDF group). The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the CDApatients had significant superiorities in mean blood loss (P < 0.00001, standard mean differences (SMD) = -0.85, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = -1.22 to -0.48); reoperation (P = 0.0009, risk ratio (RR) = 0.28, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.13-0.59), adjacent segment degeneration (P < 0.00001, risk ratio (RR) = 0.48, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.40-0.58) and Neck Disability Index (P = 0.002, SMD = 0.31, 95 % CI = 0.12-0.50). No significant difference was identified between the two groups regarding mean surgical time (P = 0.84, SMD = -0.04, 95 % CI = -0.40 to 0.32), neck and arm pain scores (P = 0.52, SMD = 0.06, 95 % CI = -0.13 to 0.25) reported on a visual analog scale and rate of postoperative complications [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79; 95 % CI = 0.50-1.25; P = 0.31]. The CDA group of sagittal range of motion (ROM) of the operated and adjacent levels, functional segment units (FSU) and C2-7 is superior to ACDF group by radiographic data of peroperation, postoperation and follow-up. CONCLUSION: We can learn from this meta-analysis that the cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) group is equivalent and in some aspects has more significant clinical outcomes than the ACDF group at two contiguous levels CDD.
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: Melvin C Makhni; Joseph A Osorio; Paul J Park; Joseph M Lombardi; Kiehyun Daniel Riew Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jamal Shillingford; Joseph Laratta; Nathan Hardy; Comron Saifi; Joseph Lombardi; Andrew J Pugely; Ronald A Lehman; K Daniel Riew Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2017-12