Dataset Information

Effect of Arthroplasty vs Fusion for Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy is increasing. Treatment with motion preserving anterior cervical disc arthroplasty was introduced to prevent symptomatic adjacent segment disease, and there is need to evaluate results of this treatment compared with standard anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Objective

To investigate clinical outcomes at 5 years for arthroplasty vs fusion in patients who underwent surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial included patients aged 25 to 60 years with C6 or C7 radiculopathy referred to study sites' outpatient clinics from 2008 to 2013. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to December 2020.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to arthroplasty or fusion. Patients were blinded to which treatment they received. The surgical team was blinded until nerve root decompression was completed.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) score. Secondary outcomes were arm and neck pain, measured with numeric rating scales (NRS); quality of life, measured with the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D); reoperation rates; and adjacent segment disease.

Results

Among 147 eligible patients, 4 (2.7%) declined to participate and 7 (4.8%) were excluded. A total of 136 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 44.1 [7.0] years; 73 (53.7%) women), with 68 patients randomized to arthroplasty and 68 patients randomized to fusion. A total of 114 patients (83.8%) completed the 5-year follow-up. In the arthroplasty group, the mean NDI score was 45.9 (95% CI, 43.3 to 48.4) points at baseline and 22.2 (95% CI, 18.0 to 26.3) points at 5 years follow-up, and in the fusion group, mean NDI score was 51.3 (95% CI, 48.1 to 54.4) points at baseline, and 21.3 (95% CI, 17.0 to 25.6) points at 5 years follow-up. The changes in mean NDI scores between baseline and 5 years were statistically significant for arthroplasty (mean change, 24.8 [95% CI, 19.8 to 29.9] points; P < .001) and fusion (mean change, 29.9 [95% CI, 24.0 to 35.9] points; P < .001), but the change in mean NDI scores was not significantly different between groups (difference, 5.1 [95% CI, -2.6 to 12.7] points; P = .19). There were no significant differences in changes in arm pain (mean [SE] change, 3.5 [0.5] vs 3.1 [0.4]; P = .47), neck pain (mean [SE] change, 3.0 [0.5] vs 3.4 [0.5]; P = .50), EQ-5D (mean [SE] change, 0.39 [0.4] vs 0.45 [0.6]; P = .46), patients requiring reoperation (10 patients [14.7%] vs 8 patients [11.8%]; P = .61), and adjacent segment disease (0 patients vs 1 patient [1.5%]; P = .32) between the arthroplasty and fusion groups.

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, patients treated with arthroplasty and fusion reported similar and substantial clinical improvement at 5 years.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00735176.

SUBMITTER: Johansen TO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8343489 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCervical spondylotic myelopathy is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction worldwide. It remains unknown whether a ventral or dorsal surgical approach provides the best results.ObjectiveTo determine whether a ventral surgical approach compared with a dorsal surgical approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy improves patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial of patients aged 45 to 80 years with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy enrolled at 15 large North American hospitals from April 1, 2014, to March 30, 2018; final follow-up was April 15, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized to undergo ventral surgery (n = 63) or dorsal surgery (n = 100). Ventral surgery involved anterior cervical disk removal and instrumented fusion. Dorsal surgery involved laminectomy with instrumented fusion or open-door laminoplasty. Type of dorsal surgery (fusion or laminoplasty) was at surgeon's discretion.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 1-year change in the Short Form 36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) score (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]; minimum clinically important difference = 5). Secondary outcomes included 1-year change in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, complications, work status, sagittal vertical axis, health resource utilization, and 1- and 2-year changes in the Neck Disability Index and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions score.ResultsAmong 163 patients who were randomized (mean age, 62 years; 80 [49%] women), 155 (95%) completed the trial at 1 year (80% at 2 years). All patients had surgery, but 5 patients did not receive their allocated surgery (ventral: n = 1; dorsal: n = 4). One-year SF-36 PCS mean improvement was not significantly different between ventral surgery (5.9 points) and dorsal surgery (6.2 points) (estimated mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -2.6 to 3.1; P = .86). Of 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. Rates of complications in the ventral and dorsal surgery groups, respectively, were 48% vs 24% (difference, 24%; 95% CI, 8.7%-38.5%; P = .002) and included dysphagia (41% vs 0%), new neurological deficit (2% vs 9%), reoperations (6% vs 4%), and readmissions within 30 days (0% vs 7%).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing cervical spinal surgery, a ventral surgical approach did not significantly improve patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year compared with outcomes after a dorsal surgical approach.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02076113.

Project description:BackgroundCervical spondylosis is a very common disorder and cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) is the most common form of spinal degenerative disease. Its clinical manifestations focus on pain and numbness of the neck and arm as well as restricted movement of the neck, which greatly affect the patient's life and work. The orthopedic of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) theory holds that the basic pathologic change in spinal degenerative diseases is the imbalance between the dynamic system and the static system of the cervical spine. Based on this theory, some Chinese physicians have developed a balance chiropractic therapy (BCT) to treat CSR, which has been clinically examined for more than 50 years to effectively cure CSR. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the therapeutic effect and safety of BCT on CSR and to investigate the mechanism by which the efficacy is achieved.Methods/designWe propose a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BCT for CSR. Participants aged 18 to 65 years, who are in conformity with the diagnostic criteria of CSR and whose pain score on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is more than 4 points and less than 8 points, will be included and randomly allocated into two groups: a treatment group and a control group. Participants in the treatment group will be treated with BCT, while the control group will receive traction therapy (TT). The primary outcome is pain severity (measured with a VAS). Secondary outcomes will include cervical curvature (measured by the Borden Index), a composite of functional status (measured by the Neck Disability Index, NDI), patient health status (evaluated by the SF-36 health survey) and adverse events (AEs) as reported in the trial.DiscussionIf BCT can relieve neck pain without adverse effects, it may be a novel strategy for the treatment of CSR. Furthermore, the mechanism of BCT for CSR will be partially elucidated.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT02705131 . Registered on 9 March 2016.

Project description:Importance:The optimal international normalized ratio (INR) to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in warfarin-treated patients with recent arthroplasty is unknown. Objective:To determine the safety and efficacy of a target INR of 1.8 vs 2.5 for VTE prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants:The randomized Genetic Informatics Trial (GIFT) of Warfarin to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis enrolled 1650 patients aged 65 years or older initiating warfarin for elective hip or knee arthroplasty at 6 US medical centers. Enrollment began in April 2011 and follow-up concluded in October 2016. Interventions:In a 2?×?2 factorial design, participants were randomized to a target INR of 1.8 (n?=?823) or 2.5 (n?=?827) and to either genotype-guided or clinically guided warfarin dosing. For the first 11 days of therapy, open-label warfarin dosing was guided by a web application. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the composite of VTE (within 60 days) or death (within 30 days). Participants underwent screening duplex ultrasound postoperatively. The hypothesis was that an INR target of 1.8 would be noninferior to an INR target of 2.5, using a noninferiority margin of 3% for the absolute risk of VTE. Secondary end points were bleeding and INR values of 4 or more. Results:Among 1650 patients who were randomized (mean age, 72.1 years; 1049 women [63.6%]; 1502 white [91.0%]), 1597 (96.8%) received at least 1 dose of warfarin and were included in the primary analysis. The rate of the primary composite outcome of VTE or death was 5.1% (41 of 804) in the low-intensity-warfarin group (INR target, 1.8) vs 3.8% (30 of 793) in the standard-treatment-warfarin group (INR target, 2.5), for a difference of 1.3% (1-sided 95% CI, -? to 3.05%, P?=?.06 for noninferiority). Major bleeding occurred in 0.4% of patients in the low-intensity group and 0.9% of patients in the standard-intensity group, for a difference of -0.5% (95% CI, -1.6% to 0.4%). The INR values of 4 or more occurred in 4.5% of patients in the low-intensity group and 12.2% of the standard-intensity group, for a difference of -7.8% (95% CI, -10.5% to -5.1%). Conclusions and Relevance:Among older patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty and receiving warfarin prophylaxis, an international normalized ratio goal of 1.8 compared with 2.5 did not meet the criterion for noninferiority for risk of the composite outcome of VTE or death. However, the trial may have been underpowered to meet this criterion and further research may be warranted. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01006733.

Project description:ImportanceThe optimal management for acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether early surgical decompression results in better motor recovery than delayed surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic incomplete cervical SCI associated with preexisting canal stenosis but without bone injury.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 43 tertiary referral centers in Japan from December 2011 through November 2019. Patients aged 20 to 79 years with motor-incomplete cervical SCI with preexisting canal stenosis (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] Impairment Scale C; without fracture or dislocation) were included. Data were analyzed from September to November 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized to undergo surgical treatment within 24 hours after admission or delayed surgical treatment after at least 2 weeks of conservative treatment.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points were improvement in the mean ASIA motor score, total score of the spinal cord independence measure, and the proportion of patients able to walk independently at 1 year after injury.ResultsAmong 72 randomized patients, 70 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.4] years; age range, 41-79 years; 5 [7%] women and 65 [93%] men) were included in the full analysis population (37 patients assigned to early surgical treatment and 33 patients assigned to delayed surgical treatment). Of these, 56 patients (80%) had data available for at least 1 primary outcome at 1 year. There was no significant difference among primary end points for the early surgical treatment group compared with the delayed surgical treatment group (mean [SD] change in ASIA motor score, 53.7 [14.7] vs 48.5 [19.1]; difference, 5.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 14.5; P = .27; mean [SD] SCIM total score, 77.9 [22.7] vs 71.3 [27.3]; P = .34; able to walk independently, 21 of 30 patients [70.0%] vs 16 of 26 patients [61.5%]; P = .51). A mixed-design analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in the mean change in ASIA motor scores between the groups (F1,49 = 4.80; P = .03). The early surgical treatment group, compared with the delayed surgical treatment group, had greater motor scores than the delayed surgical treatment group at 2 weeks (mean [SD] score, 34.2 [18.8] vs 18.9 [20.9]), 3 months (mean [SD] score, 49.1 [15.1] vs 37.2 [20.9]), and 6 months (mean [SD] score, 51.5 [13.9] vs 41.3 [23.4]) after injury. Adverse events were common in both groups (eg, worsening of paralysis, 6 patients vs 6 patients; death, 3 patients vs 3 patients).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that among patients with cervical SCI, early surgical treatment produced similar motor regain at 1 year after injury as delayed surgical treatment but showed accelerated recovery within the first 6 months. These exploratory results suggest that early surgical treatment leads to faster neurological recovery, which requires further validation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485458; umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000006780.

Project description:BackgroundTraditionally paired meta-analysis revealed inconsistencies in the safety and effectiveness of surgical interventions. We conducted a network meta-analysis to assess various treatments' clinical efficacy and safety for pure cervical radiculopathy.MethodsThe Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different treatment options for patients with pure cervical radiculopathy from inception until October 23, 2021. The primary outcomes were postoperative success rates, postoperative complication rates, and postoperative reoperation rates. The pooled data were subjected to a random-effects consistency model. The protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42021284819).ResultsThis study included 23 RCTs (n = 1,844) that evaluated various treatments for patients with pure cervical radiculopathy. There were no statistical differences between treatments in the consistency model in terms of major clinical effectiveness and safety outcomes. Postoperative success rates were higher for anterior cervical foraminotomy (ACF: probability 38%), posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF: 24%), and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and additional plating (ACDFP: 21%). Postoperative complication rates ranked from high to low as follows: cervical disc replacement (CDR: probability 32%), physiotherapy (25%), ACF (25%). Autologous bone graft (ABG) had better relief from arm pain (probability 71%) and neck disability (71%). Among the seven surgical interventions with a statistical difference, anterior cervical discectomy with allograft bone graft plus plating (ABGP) had the shortest surgery time.ConclusionsAccording to current results, all surgical interventions can achieve satisfactory results, and there are no statistically significant differences. As a result, based on their strengths and patient-related factors, surgeons can exercise discretion in determining the appropriate surgical intervention for pure cervical radiculopathy.Systematic Review Registration: CRD42021284819.