Jorge H Núñez1,2, Berta Escudero3, Irene Omiste3, Judith Martínez-Peñas3, Maria Surroca3, Francisco Alonzo-González4, David Bosch-García3,5. 1. Spine Unit, Department of Traumatology and Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital of Mutua Terrassa, Plaça del Doctor Robert, 5, 08221, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain. hassan2803med@gmail.com. 2. Spine Unit, Artro-Esport, Centro Médico Teknon, Carrer de Vilana, 12, 08022, Barcelona, Spain. hassan2803med@gmail.com. 3. Spine Unit, Department of Traumatology and Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital of Mutua Terrassa, Plaça del Doctor Robert, 5, 08221, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Hospital Ceibal de Accidentes Del Instituto Guatemalteco de Seguridad Social, Cuidad de Guatemala, Guatemala. 5. Grup Traumatologic de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Compare the outcomes of randomized clinical trials of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. METHODS: Nine randomized clinical trials were selected. The clinical, radiological, and surgical outcomes were analyzed, including functional and pain scores, range of motion, adjacent segment degeneration, adverse events, and need for reoperation. RESULTS: 2664 patients were included in the study. Pooled results indicated that the CDA group had a significantly higher overall success rate (p < 0.001), a higher improvement in the neck disability index (NDI) (p = 0.002), less VAS arm pain (p = 0.01), and better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component (p = 0.01) than ACDF group. Likewise, the pooled results indicated a significantly higher motion rate (p < 0.001), less adjacent syndrome (p < 0.05), and a lower percentage of reoperation (p < 0.001) in the CDA group. There were no significant differences between the CDA and ACDF groups in the neck pain scale (p = 0.11), the health questionnaire SF-36 mental component (p = 0.10), and in adverse events (p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: In long-term follow-up, CDA showed a better overall success rate, better improvement in NDI, less VAS arm pain, better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component, a higher motion rate, less adjacent syndrome, and less reoperation rate than ACDF. No significant differences were found in the neck pain scale, SF-36 mental component, and in adverse events.
PURPOSE: Compare the outcomes of randomized clinical trials of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. METHODS: Nine randomized clinical trials were selected. The clinical, radiological, and surgical outcomes were analyzed, including functional and pain scores, range of motion, adjacent segment degeneration, adverse events, and need for reoperation. RESULTS: 2664 patients were included in the study. Pooled results indicated that the CDA group had a significantly higher overall success rate (p < 0.001), a higher improvement in the neck disability index (NDI) (p = 0.002), less VAS arm pain (p = 0.01), and better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component (p = 0.01) than ACDF group. Likewise, the pooled results indicated a significantly higher motion rate (p < 0.001), less adjacent syndrome (p < 0.05), and a lower percentage of reoperation (p < 0.001) in the CDA group. There were no significant differences between the CDA and ACDF groups in the neck pain scale (p = 0.11), the health questionnaire SF-36 mental component (p = 0.10), and in adverse events (p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: In long-term follow-up, CDA showed a better overall success rate, better improvement in NDI, less VAS arm pain, better health questionnaire SF-36 physical component, a higher motion rate, less adjacent syndrome, and less reoperation rate than ACDF. No significant differences were found in the neck pain scale, SF-36 mental component, and in adverse events.
Authors: Jason C Eck; S Craig Humphreys; Tae-Hong Lim; Soon Tack Jeong; Jesse G Kim; Scott D Hodges; Howard S An Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Comron Saifi; Arielle W Fein; Alejandro Cazzulino; Ronald A Lehman; Frank M Phillips; Howard S An; K Daniel Riew Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Damian Hoy; Lyn March; Anthony Woolf; Fiona Blyth; Peter Brooks; Emma Smith; Theo Vos; Jan Barendregt; Jed Blore; Chris Murray; Roy Burstein; Rachelle Buchbinder Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Sean N Neifert; Michael L Martini; Frank Yuk; Ian T McNeill; John M Caridi; Jeremy Steinberger; Eric Karl Oermann Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.104