Dataset Information

What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion?: A meta-analysis from 11 studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nowadays, 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.

Methods

According 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?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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Zhao H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5895371 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion?: A meta-analysis from 11 studies.

Zhao He H Duan Li-Jun LJ Gao Yu-Shan YS Yang Yong-Dong YD Tang Xiang-Sheng XS Zhao Ding-Yan DY Xiong Yang Y Hu Zhen-Guo ZG Li Chuan-Hong CH Yu Xing X

Medicine 20180301 13

<h4>Background</h4>Nowadays, 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 ...[more]

PMID: 29595628

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite being considered the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic cervical disc disease, anterior cervical decompression and fusion invariably accelerates adjacent segment degeneration. Cervical total disc replacement is a motion-preserving procedure developed as a substitute to fusion. Whether cervical total disc replacement is superior to fusion remains unclear.MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with the inclusion criteria to identify possible studies. The retrieved results were last updated on December 12, 2014. We classified the studies as short-term and midterm follow-up.ResultsNineteen randomized controlled trials involving 4516 cases were identified. Compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, cervical total disc replacement had better functional outcomes (neck disability index [NDI], NDI success, neurological success, neck pain scores reported on a numerical rating scale [NRS], visual analog scales scores and overall success), greater segmental motion at the index level, fewer adverse events and fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index and adjacent levels in short-term follow-up (P < 0.05). With midterm follow-up, the cervical total disc replacement group indicated superiority in the NDI, neurological success, pain assessment (NRS), and secondary surgical procedures at the index level (P < 0.05). The Short Form 36 (SF-36) and segmental motion at the adjacent level in the short-term follow-up showed no significant difference between the two procedures, as did the secondary surgical procedure rates at the adjacent level with midterm follow-up (P > 0.05).ConclusionsCervical total disc replacement presented favorable functional outcomes, fewer adverse events, and fewer secondary surgical procedures. The efficacy and safety of cervical total disc replacement are superior to those of fusion. Longer-term, multicenter studies are required for a better evaluation of the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures.

Project description:IntroductionTo analyze the perioperative hidden blood loss (HBL) and its influencing factors in elderly cervical spondylosis patients treated with anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF).Materials and methodsFrom January 2017 to December 2018, 128 elderly cervical spondylosis patients (age > 65 y) treated with ACDF were selected. The patients' height, weight, duration of symptoms, previous medical history and other basic information were routinely recorded. The hemoglobin (Hb), hematocrit (Hct) and blood coagulation function preoperative and the next day postoperative were recorded. The operation time, surgical bleeding, ASA classification, fixation method, total drainage and the time for extraction of drainage tube were recorded. The total blood loss (TBL) was calculated according to the Gross's formula, and HBL was calculated based on TBL, total drainage and surgical bleeding. The statistical analysis of HBL was performed, and then influential factors were further analyzed by multivariate linear regression analysis and t test.ResultsThe mean surgical bleeding was 102.70 ± 46.78 mL and HBL was 487.98 ± 255.96 mL. HBL accounted for 67.61 ± 5.20% of TBL. According to the multiple linear regression analysis, the gender (P = 0.047), operation time (P = 0.000), fixation method (P = 0.014) and international normalized ratio (INR) (P = 0.003) influenced the amount of HBL. Body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.624), hypertension (P = 0.977), diabetes (P = 0.528), blood type (P = 0.577), ASA classification (P = 0.711), duration of symptoms (P = 0.661), preoperative cobb angle (P = 0.152), number of surgical level (P = 0.709), intramedullary hyperintensity (P = 0.967), drainage time (P = 0.294), postoperative drainage volume (P = 0.599), prothrombin time (PT) (P = 0.674), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) (P = 0.544) and thrombin time (TT) (P = 0.680) had no correlation with the amount of HBL.ConclusionsThere was obvious HBL during the perioperative period of ACDF in elderly cervical spondylosis patients. The male patients, longer operation time, fusion with titanium plate and cage and high INR were independent risk factors for HBL.

Project description:BackgroundCervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has emerged as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical pathologies. Studies are on-going to assess the long term outcomes of CDA. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of the Prestige(®) LP Disc at 84-months follow up.MethodsProspective data from 280 CDA patients with single-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy were compared with 265 historical control ACDF patients. Clinical and radiographic follow up was completed pre-operatively, intraoperatively, and at intervals up to 84 months.ResultsFollow-up rate was 75.9% for CDA and 70.0% for ACDF patients. Statistical improvements (p < 0.001) in Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, and SF-36 were achieved by 1.5 months in both groups and maintained through 84 months. At 84 months, 86.1% of CDA versus 80.1% of ACDF patients achieved NDI success, (≥15-point improvement over baseline). Mean NDI score improvements exceeded 30 points in both groups. SF-36 PCS/MCS mean improvements were 13.1±11.9/8.2±12.3 points for CDA and 10.7±11.8/8.3±13.6 points for ACDF. Neurological success was 92.8% for CDA and 79.7% for ACDF patients. The rate of Overall Success was 74.9% for CDA and 63.2% for ACDF. At 84 months, 17.5% of CDA and 16.6% of ACDF patients had a possibly implant- or implant-surgical procedure-related adverse event. Eighteen (6.4%) CDA and 29 (10.9%) ACDF patients had a second surgery at the index level. In CDA patients, mean angular motion at the target level was maintained at 24 (7.5°) and 84 (6.9°) months. Bridging bone was reported in 5.9%/9.5%/10.2%/13.0% of CDA patients at 24/36/60/84 months. Change in mean preoperative angulation of the adjacent segment above/below the index level was1.06±4.39/1.25±4.06 for CDA and (-0.23)±5.37/1.25±5.07 for ACDF patients. At 84 months, 90.9% of CDA and 85.6% of ACDF patients were satisfied with the results of their treatment.ConclusionsPrestige LP maintained significantly improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion; statistical superiority of CDA was concluded for overall success. This investigational device exemption study was sponsored by Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, TN. Study approved by the Hughston Sports Medicine Center Institutional Review Board on January 7, 2005. Clinical trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00667459. All participants signed an informed consent.

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: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.

Dataset Information

What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion?: A meta-analysis from 11 studies.

Background

Methods

Conclusions

Publications

What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion?: A meta-analysis from 11 studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets