Monish M Maharaj1, Ralph J Mobbs1, Jarred Hogan1, Dong Fang Zhao2, Prashanth J Rao1, Kevin Phan3. 1. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia;; NeuroSpine Clinic, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Randwick, Sydney, Australia;; University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; 2. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia;; NeuroSpine Clinic, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Randwick, Sydney, Australia;; University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia;; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical approaches are usually required in cases of severe cervical disc disease. The traditional method of anterior cervical disc fusion (ACDF) has been associated with reduced local mobility and increased occurrence of adjacent segment disease. The newer method of anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) relies upon artificial discs of various products. Current literature is inconsistent in the comparative performance of these methods with regards to clinical, radiological and patient outcomes. METHODS: Electronic databases, including OVID Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were comprehensively searched to retrieve studies comparing the treatment outcomes of ACDF and ACDA. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were extracted from eligible articles. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty five articles were identified through the database searches, and after screening 28 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 4,070 patients were included (2156 ACDA, 1914 ACDF). There was no significant difference between the two groups in operation time, blood loss during operation, long-term all-complication rate and reoperation rate at the level of injury. The ACDA group had significantly better neurological outcomes, as well as a significantly lower rate of adjacent segment diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ACDF, the ACDA procedure is associated with improved reoperation rate and reduction in neurological deficits amongst previously demonstrated benefits. There is heterogeneity in ACDA devices; future studies are required to investigate the impact of this technique on treatment outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Surgical approaches are usually required in cases of severe cervical disc disease. The traditional method of anterior cervical disc fusion (ACDF) has been associated with reduced local mobility and increased occurrence of adjacent segment disease. The newer method of anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) relies upon artificial discs of various products. Current literature is inconsistent in the comparative performance of these methods with regards to clinical, radiological and patient outcomes. METHODS: Electronic databases, including OVID Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were comprehensively searched to retrieve studies comparing the treatment outcomes of ACDF and ACDA. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were extracted from eligible articles. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty five articles were identified through the database searches, and after screening 28 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 4,070 patients were included (2156 ACDA, 1914 ACDF). There was no significant difference between the two groups in operation time, blood loss during operation, long-term all-complication rate and reoperation rate at the level of injury. The ACDA group had significantly better neurological outcomes, as well as a significantly lower rate of adjacent segment diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ACDF, the ACDA procedure is associated with improved reoperation rate and reduction in neurological deficits amongst previously demonstrated benefits. There is heterogeneity in ACDA devices; future studies are required to investigate the impact of this technique on treatment outcomes.
Authors: Christopher Chambliss Harrod; Alan S Hilibrand; Dena J Fischer; Andrea C Skelly Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Toon F M Boselie; Paul C Willems; Henk van Mameren; Rob A de Bie; Edward C Benzel; Henk van Santbrink Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Praveen V Mummaneni; Beejal Y Amin; Jau-Ching Wu; Erika D Brodt; Joseph R Dettori; Rick C Sasso Journal: Evid Based Spine Care J Date: 2012-02
Authors: S Finkenstaedt; A F Mannion; T F Fekete; D Haschtmann; F S Kleinstueck; U Mutter; H J Becker; D Bellut; F Porchet Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Kevin Phan; Dane Moran; Thomas Kostowski; Risheng Xu; Rory Goodwin; Benjamin Elder; Seba Ramhmdani; Ali Bydon Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2017-06
Authors: Julian L Gendreau; Lily H Kim; Payton N Prins; Marissa D'Souza; Paymon Rezaii; Arjun V Pendharkar; Eric S Sussman; Allen L Ho; Atman M Desai Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-11-21
Authors: Zoe B Cheung; Sunder Gidumal; Samuel White; John Shin; Kevin Phan; Nebiyu Osman; Rachel Bronheim; Luilly Vargas; Jun S Kim; Samuel K Cho Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2018-05-17