Dataset Information

Comparison of the safety of outpatient cervical disc replacement with inpatient cervical disc replacement: A protocol for a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been widely used as an effective treatment for cervical degenerative disc diseases in recent years. However, the cost of this procedure is very high and may bring a great economic burden to patients and the health care system. It is reported that outpatient procedures can reduce nearly 30% of the costs associated with hospitalization compared with inpatient procedures. However, the safety profile surrounding outpatient CDR remains poorly resolved. This study aims to evaluate the current evidence on the safety of outpatient CDR METHODS:: Four English databases were searched. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed according to the PICOS principle. The titles and abstracts of the records will be screened by 2 authors independently. Records that meet the eligibility criteria will be screened for a second time by reading the full text. An extraction form will be established for data extraction. Risk of bias assessment will be performed by 2 authors independently using Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data synthesis will be conducted using Stata software. Heterogeneity among studies will be assessed using I test. The funnel plot, Egger regression test, and Begg rank correlation test will be used to examine the publication bias. RESULTS:The results of this meta-analysis will be published in a peer-review journal. CONCLUSION:This will be the first meta-analysis that compares the safety of outpatient CDR with inpatient CDR. Our study will help surgeons fully understand the complications and safety profile surrounding outpatient CDR. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:: doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3597Z.

SUBMITTER: Wang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458200 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the safety of outpatient cervical disc replacement with inpatient cervical disc replacement: A protocol for a meta-analysis.

Wang Xiaofei X Meng Yang Y Liu Hao H Hong Ying Y Wang Beiyu B

Medicine 20200801 35

<h4>Background</h4>Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been widely used as an effective treatment for cervical degenerative disc diseases in recent years. However, the cost of this procedure is very high and may bring a great economic burden to patients and the health care system. It is reported that outpatient procedures can reduce nearly 30% of the costs associated with hospitalization compared with inpatient procedures. However, the safety profile surrounding outpatient CDR remains poorly res ...[more]

PMID: 32871877

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: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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the safety of outpatient cervical disc replacement with inpatient cervical disc replacement: A protocol for a meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparison of the safety of outpatient cervical disc replacement with inpatient cervical disc replacement: A protocol for a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets