Literature DB >> 30847009

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

.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical degenerative disc disease is a multifactorial condition that begins with deterioration of the intervertebral disc and results in further degeneration within the spine involving the facet joints and ligaments. This health technology assessment examined the effectiveness, safety, durability, and cost-effectiveness of cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) versus fusion for treating cervical degenerative disc disease.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence comparing C-ADR with fusion. We assessed the risk of bias in each study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic review of the economic literature and assessed the cost-effectiveness of C-ADR compared with fusion. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding C-ADR in Ontario over the next 5 years. To contextualize the potential value of C-ADR, we spoke with people with cervical degenerative disc disease.
RESULTS: Eight studies of C-ADR for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease and two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease satisfied the criterion of statistical noninferiority compared with fusion on the primary outcome of 2-year overall treatment success (GRADE: Moderate). In two studies of C-ADR for two-level disease, C-ADR was statistically superior to fusion surgery for the same primary outcome (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was also noninferior to fusion for perioperative outcomes (e.g., operative time, blood loss), patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR was superior to fusion for recovery and return to work, had higher technical success, and had lower rates of re-operation at the index site (GRADE: Moderate). C-ADR also maintained motion at the index-treated cervical level (GRADE: Moderate), but evidence was insufficient to determine if adjacent-level surgery rates differed between C-ADR and fusion. Current evidence is also insufficient to determine the long-term durability of C-ADR.The primary economic analysis shows that C-ADR is likely to be cost-effective compared with fusion for both one-level ($11,607/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and two-level ($16,782/QALY) degeneration. Various sensitivity and scenario analyses confirm the robustness of the results. The current uptake for one-level and two-level C-ADR in Ontario is about 8% of the total eligible. For one-level involvement, the estimated net budget impact increases from $7,243 (18 procedures) in the first year to $395,623 (196 procedures) in the fifth year following public funding, for a total budget impact over 5 years of $916,326. For two-level involvement, the corresponding values are $5,460 (7 procedures) in the first year and $283,689 (76 procedures) in the fifth year, for an estimated total budget impact of $705,628 over 5 years.People with cervical degenerative disc disease reported that symptoms of pain and numbness can have a negative impact on their quality of life. People with whom we spoke had tried a variety of treatments with minor success; surgery was perceived as the most effective and permanent solution. Those who had undergone C-ADR spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: For carefully selected patients with cervical degenerative disc disease, C-ADR provides patient-important and statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Further, unlike fusion, C-ADR allows people to maintain relatively normal cervical spine motion.Compared with fusion, C-ADR appears to represent good value for money for adults with one-level cervical degenerative disc disease ($11,607/QALY) and for adults with two-level disease ($16,782/QALY). In Ontario, publicly funding C-ADR could result in total additional costs of $916,326 for one-level procedures and $705,628 for two-level procedures over the next 5 years.People with whom we spoke who had undergone C-ADR surgery spoke positively of its impact on their quality of life and ability to move their neck after surgery. The limited availability of C-ADR in Ontario was viewed as a barrier to receiving this treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30847009      PMCID: PMC6394883     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser        ISSN: 1915-7398


  140 in total

1.  Outcome scores in degenerative cervical disc surgery.

Authors:  B Zoëga; J Kärrholm; B Lind
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: A 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Deed E Harrison; Jeremy M Bula; Donald R Gore
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.

Authors:  A S Hilibrand; G D Carlson; M A Palumbo; P K Jones; H H Bohlman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

Authors:  Karem Slim; Emile Nini; Damien Forestier; Fabrice Kwiatkowski; Yves Panis; Jacques Chipponi
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.872

5.  Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine.

Authors:  Jan Goffin; Eric Geusens; Nicolaas Vantomme; Els Quintens; Yannic Waerzeggers; Bart Depreitere; Frank Van Calenbergh; Johan van Loon
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2004-04

6.  Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft.

Authors:  Michael G Kaiser; Regis W Haid; Brian R Subach; Bryan Barnes; Gerald E Rodts
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Francois Porchet; Newton H Metcalf
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.047

8.  Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up.

Authors:  D R Gore
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Cervical myelopathy. current diagnostic and treatment strategies.

Authors:  Charles C Edwards; K Daniel Riew; Paul A Anderson; Alan S Hilibrand; Alexander F Vaccaro
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement.

Authors:  Paul C McAfee; Bryan W Cunningham; John Devine; Eric Williams; Janet Yu-Yahiro
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2003-08
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Bibliometric and visualized analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles on anterior cervical surgery.

Authors:  Junbo He; Tingkui Wu; Chen Ding; Beiyu Wang; Ying Hong; Hao Liu
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-12-10

2.  Posterior intraprosthetic dislocation of cervical arthroplasty: illustrative case.

Authors:  Marc Prod'homme; Didier Grasset; Duccio Boscherini
Journal:  J Neurosurg Case Lessons       Date:  2021-12-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.