Dataset Information

Meta-Analysis Comparing Zero-Profile Spacer and Anterior Plate in Anterior Cervical Fusion.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anterior plate fusion is an effective procedure for the treatment of cervical spinal diseases but is accompanied by a high incidence of postoperative dysphagia. A zero profile (Zero-P) spacer is increasingly being used to reduce postoperative dysphagia and other potential complications associated with surgical intervention. Studies comparing the Zero-P spacer and anterior plate have reported conflicting results.

Methodology

A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety, efficacy, radiological outcomes and complications associated with the use of a Zero-P spacer versus an anterior plate in anterior cervical spine fusion for the treatment of cervical spinal disease. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and other databases and performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques.

Results

Ten studies enrolling 719 cervical spondylosis patients were included. The pooled data showed significant differences in the operation time [SMD = -0.58 (95% CI = -0.77 to 0.40, p < 0.01)] and blood loss [SMD = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.59 to -0.21), p < 0.01] between the two groups. Compared to the anterior plate group, the Zero-P group exhibited a significantly improved JOA score and reduced NDI and VAS. However, anterior plate fusion had greater postoperative segmental and cervical Cobb's angles than the Zero-P group at the last follow-up. The fusion rate in the two groups was similar. More importantly, the Zero-P group had a lower incidence of earlier and later postoperative dysphagia.

Conclusions

Compared to anterior plate fusion, Zero-P is a safer and effective procedure, with a similar fusion rate and lower incidence of earlier and later postoperative dysphagia. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be accepted with caution due to the limitations of the study. Further evaluation and large-sample RCTs are required to confirm and update the results of this study.

SUBMITTER: Dong J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4466022 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-Analysis Comparing Zero-Profile Spacer and Anterior Plate in Anterior Cervical Fusion.

Dong Jun J Lu Meng M Lu Teng T Liang Baobao B Xu Junkui J Zhou Jun J Lv Hongjun H Qin Jie J Cai Xuan X Huang Sihua S Li Haopeng H Wang Dong D He Xijing X

PloS one 20150611 6

<h4>Background</h4>Anterior plate fusion is an effective procedure for the treatment of cervical spinal diseases but is accompanied by a high incidence of postoperative dysphagia. A zero profile (Zero-P) spacer is increasingly being used to reduce postoperative dysphagia and other potential complications associated with surgical intervention. Studies comparing the Zero-P spacer and anterior plate have reported conflicting results.<h4>Methodology</h4>A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the s ...[more]

PMID: 26067917

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Whether cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) remains controversial, especially in relation to long-term results. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficiency of CDA and ACDF for cervical disc disease. METHODS:We performed this study according to the Cochrane methodology. An extensive search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 1 June 2019 using the following key words: "anterior cervical fusion," "arthroplasty," "replacement" and "artificial disc". RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane, London, UK) was used to analyze data. Safety and efficiency outcome measures included the success rate, functional outcome measures, adverse events (AE), adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), secondary surgery, and patients' satisfaction and recommendation rates. The OR and MD with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate discontinuous and continuous variables, respectively. The statistically significant level was set at P <?0.05. RESULTS:A total of 11 randomized controlled trials with 3505 patients (CDA/ACDF: 1913/1592) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with ACDF, CDA achieved significantly higher overall success (2.10, 95% CI [1.70, 2.59]), neck disability index (NDI) success (1.73, 95% CI [1.37, 2.18]), neurological success (1.65, 95% CI [1.24, 2.20]), patients' satisfaction (2.14, 95% CI [1.50, 3.05]), and patients' recommendation rates (3.23, 95% CI [1.79, 5.80]). Functional outcome measures such as visual analog score neck pain (-5.50, 95% CI [-8.49, -2.52]) and arm pain (-3.78, 95% CI [-7.04, -0.53]), the Short Form-36 physical component score (SF-36 PCS) (1.93, 95% CI [0.53, 3.32]), and the Short Form-36 mental component score (SF-36 MCS) (2.62, 95% CI [0.95, 4.29]), revealed superiority in the CDA group. CDA also achieved a significantly lower rate of symptomatic ASD (0.46, 95% CI [0.34, 0.63]), total secondary surgery (0.50, 95% CI [0.29, 0.87]), secondary surgery at the index level (0.46, 95% CI [0.29, 0.74]), and secondary surgery at the adjacent level (0.37, 95% CI [0.28, 0.49]). However, no significant difference was found in radiological success (1.35, 95% CI [0.88, 2.08]), NDI score (-2.88, 95% CI [-5.93, 0.17]), total reported AE (1.14, 95% CI [0.92, 1.42]), serious AE (0.89, 95% CI [0.71, 1.11]), device/surgery-related AE (0.90, 95% CI [0.68, 1.18]), radiological superior ASD (0.63, 95% CI [0.28, 1.43]), inferior ASD (0.45, 95% CI [0.19, 1.11]), and work status (1.33, 95% CI [0.78, 2.25]). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed different results between US and non-US groups. CONCLUSION:Our study provided further evidence that compared to ACDF, CDA had a higher long-term clinical success rate and better functional outcome measurements, and resulted in less symptomatic ASD and fewer secondary surgeries. However, worldwide multicenter RCT with long-term follow up are still needed for further evaluation in the future.

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a standard surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, but reoperations sometimes are performed to treat complications of fusion such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent-segment degeneration. A cervical disc arthroplasty is designed to preserve motion and avoid the shortcomings of fusion. Available evidence suggests that a cervical disc arthroplasty can provide pain relief and functional improvements similar or superior to an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. However, there is controversy regarding whether a cervical disc arthroplasty can reduce the frequency of reoperations.Questions/purposesWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion regarding (1) the overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels; (2) the frequency of reoperation at the index level; and (3) the frequency of reoperation at the adjacent levels.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and reporting the frequency of reoperation. We also manually searched the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Twelve RCTs with a total of 3234 randomized patients were included. Eight types of disc prostheses were used in the included studies. In the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group, autograft was used in one study and allograft in 11 studies. Nine of 12 studies were industry sponsored. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CI were calculated for the frequency of reoperation using random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A funnel plot suggested the possible presence of publication bias in the available pool of studies; that is, the shape of the plot suggests that smaller negative or no-difference studies may have been performed but have not been published, and so were not identified and included in this meta-analysis.ResultsThe overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels was lower in the cervical disc arthroplasty group (6%; 108/1762) than in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group (12%; 171/1472) (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80; p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed according to secondary surgical level. Compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc arthroplasty was associated with fewer reoperations at the index level (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.001) and adjacent levels (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74; p < 0.001).ConclusionsCervical disc arthroplasty is associated with fewer reoperations than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, indicating that it is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, because of some limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additional studies are needed.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating two-adjacent-level cervical spondylosis myelopathy (CSM).DesignA meta-analysis of the two anterior fusion methods was conducted. The electronic databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, CNKI, WANFANG DATA and CQVIP were searched. Quality assessment of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies criteria. Pooled risk ratios of dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean differences (SMDs) of continuous outcomes were generated. Using the ?(2) and I(2) tests, the statistical heterogeneity was assessed. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed.ParticipantsNine eligible trials with a total of 631 patients and a male-to-female ratio of 1.38:1 were included in this meta-analysis.Inclusion criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials that adopted ACCF and ACDF to treat two-adjacent-level CSM were included.ResultsNo significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding hospital stay, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, total cervical range of motion (ROM), fusion ROM, fusion rate, adjacent-level ossification and complications, while ACDF had significantly less bleeding (SMD=1.14, 95% CI (0.74 to 1.53)); a shorter operation time (SMD=1.13, 95% CI (0.82 to 1.45)); greater cervical lordosis, total cervical (SMD=-2.95, 95% CI (-4.79 to -1.12)) and fused segment (SMD=-2.24, 95% CI (-3.31 to -1.17)); higher segmental height (SMD=-0.68, 95% CI (-1.03 to -0.34)) and less graft subsidence (SMD=0.40, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.75)) compared to ACCF.ConclusionsThe results suggested that ACDF has more advantages compared to ACCF. However, additional high-quality RCTs and a longer follow-up duration are needed.

Project description:BackgroundNowadays, anterior cervical artificial disc replacement (ACDR) has achieved favorable outcomes in treatment for patients with single-level cervical spondylosis. However, It is still controversial that whether or not it will become a potent therapeutic alternation in treating 2 contiguous levels cervical spondylosis compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ACDR and ACDF in patients with 2 contiguous levels cervical spondylosis.MethodsAccording to the computer-based online search, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for articles published before July 1, 2017 were searched. The following outcome measures were extracted: neck disability index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, Short Form (SF)-12 mental component summary (MCS), SF-12 physical component summary (PCS), overall clinical success (OCS), patient satisfaction (PS), device-related adverse event (DRAE), subsequent surgical intervention (SSI), neurological deterioration (ND), and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Methodological quality was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers using the Furlan for randomized controlled trial (RCT) and MINORS scale for clinical controlled trials (CCT). The chi-squared test and Higgin I test were used to evaluate the heterogeneity. A P?<?.10 for the chi-squared test or I values exceeding 50% indicated substantial heterogeneity and a random-effect model was applied; otherwise, a fixed-effect model was used. All quantitative data were analyzed by the Review Manager 5.2 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).ResultsNine RCTs and 2 CCT studies containing 2715 patients were included for this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that the ACDR group is superior to ACDF in NDI, VAS neck, PCS score, OCS, PS, DRAE, ASD, and SSI. However, the pooled results indicate that there was no significant difference in the ND, VAS arm and in MCS score.ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis suggests that for bi-level cervical spondylosis, ACDR appears to provide superior clinical effectiveness and safety effects than ACDF. In the future, more high-quality RCTs are warranted to enhance this conclusion.

Dataset Information

Meta-Analysis Comparing Zero-Profile Spacer and Anterior Plate in Anterior Cervical Fusion.

Background

Methodology

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Meta-Analysis Comparing Zero-Profile Spacer and Anterior Plate in Anterior Cervical Fusion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets