Dataset Information

Clinical Outcomes of Treating Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease by Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

To compare clinical outcomes of all available adjacent segment disease (ASD) cohorts being treated by either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or total disc replacement (TDR).

Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Searches of electronic databases from inception to August 2017 identified 349 articles for screening. Data was extracted and analyzed using meta-analysis of proportions.

Results

The search identified 1 double-armed study and 8 single-armed studies from which data of 5 TDR and 5 ACDF cohorts treating ASD were extracted. Between the 2 pooled TDR (n = 103) and ACDF (n = 258) groups, baseline characteristics were predominantly similar. Compared with ACDF, TDR demonstrated superior operation duration (107 vs 188 minutes, P = .011) and range of motion of C2-C7 at final follow-up at least 1 year after surgery (40.2° vs 35.1°, P = .001). Other surgical and performance parameters including estimated blood loss, complications, and Japanese Orthopedic Association score, Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale neck, and Visual Analog Scale upper limb measures were comparable between cohorts.

Conclusion

TDR confers similar surgical and postoperative outcomes to the treatment of ASD as ACDF. Both procedures lead to improvement in all performance outcomes. Larger, prospective, randomized studies will validate the findings of this meta-analysis. Longer term studies are required to ascertain the recurrence rates of ASD following either surgical treatment of primary ASD.

SUBMITTER: Lu VM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6686379 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Outcomes of Treating Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease by Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lu Victor M VM Mobbs Ralph J RJ Phan Kevin K

Global spine journal 20180717 5

<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare clinical outcomes of all available adjacent segment disease (ASD) cohorts being treated by either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or total disc replacement (TDR).<h4>Methods</h4>We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Searches of electronic databases from inception to August 2017 identified 349 articles for scr ...[more]

PMID: 31431880

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been widely used in cervical spondylosis, but adjacent segment degeneration/disease (ASD) was inevitable. Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) could reduce the stress of adjacent segments and retard ASD in theory, but the superiority has not been determined yet. This analysis aimed that whether TDR was superior to ACDF for decreasing adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and adjacent segment disease (ASDis).MethodsA meta-analysis was performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration with PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CBM (China Biological Medicine) databases. It included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ASDeg, ASDis, and reoperation on adjacent segments after TDR and ACDF. Two investigators independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality, and evaluated the quality of this meta-analysis using the grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsEleven studies with 2632 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall rate of ASD in TDR group was lower than ACDF group (OR?=?0.6; 95% CI [0.38, 0.73]; P?<?0.00001). Both the incidence of ASDeg and the reoperation rate were statistically lower in the TDR group than in the ACDF group (OR?=?0.58, P?<?0.00001; OR?=?0.52, P?=?0.01, respectively). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the follow-up time and trial site; the rate of ASDeg was lower in patients underwent TDR no matter the follow-up time, and TDR tended to increase the superiority across time. The rate of ASDeg was also lower with TDR both in the USA and China (P?<?0.0001, P?=?0.03, respectively). But the cost-effectiveness result might be prone to neither of the two surgery approaches. According to GRADE, the overall quality of this meta-analysis was moderate.ConclusionsTDR decreased the rates of ASDeg and reoperation compared with that of ACDF, and the superiority may become more apparent over time. We cautiously and slightly suggest adopting TDR according to the GRADE but may not believe it excessively.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Clinical Outcomes of Treating Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease by Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Study design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical Outcomes of Treating Cervical Adjacent Segment Disease by Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets