PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating cervical degenerative diseases.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in the electronic databases including Pubmed, Medline, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, CNKI and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction from archives. All data were performed with Review Manager 5.2 software. The relative risk (RR) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated for count data. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95 % CI for continuous outcomes were pooled.
RESULTS: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine papers were included in meta-analyses. The results of the meta-analysis indicated better neurological success, better overall success, lower incidence of secondary surgical procedures and lower incidence of secondary surgical procedures in TDA group than in ACDF group. After removing a study with considerable weight, TDA group displayed lower incidence of dysphagia and dysphonia than ACDF group.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis revealed that the clinical outcomes of TDA are equivalent or superior to ACDF.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether there is a superior clinical effect of artificial cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of one-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, was conducted to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed and relevant data were extracted, and if appropriate, meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials were identified. At 24 months post-operatively, total disc replacement (TDR) was demonstrated to be more beneficial for patients compared with ACDF for the following outcomes: neurological success [odds ratio (OR) 1.92; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.47-2.49; p < 0.00001], range of motion [mean differences (MD), 6.67; 95 % CI 4.82-8.53; p < 0.00001], secondary surgical procedures (OR 0.50; 95 % CI 0.37-0.68; p < 0.00001), and visual analogue scale neck pain scores (MD -5.99; 95 % CI -10.54 to -1.45; p = 0.001) and visual analogue scale arm pain scores (MD -3.23; 95 % CI -6.48 to 0.02; p = 0.004). Other outcomes, including length of the hospital stay (MD -0.03; 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.12; p = 0.68), blood loss (MD 6.92 mL; 95 % CI -3.09 to 16.92 mL; p = 0.18), Neck Disability Index scores (MD -1.00; 95 % CI -5.28 to 3.28; p = 0.65) and rate of adverse events [risk ratio (RR), 0.93; 95 % CI 0.76-1.15; p = 0.52] demonstrated no differences between the 2 groups. Although the TDR group had a significantly longer operation time than the ACDF group, it was not considered clinically important.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with one-level CDDD, TDR was found to be more superior than ACDF in terms of neurological success, secondary surgical procedures, visual analogue scale pain scores and range of motion at 24 months post-operatively. Therefore, cervical arthroplasty is a safe and effective surgical procedure for treating one-level CDDD. We suggest adopting TDR on a large scale; with failure of TDR, ACDF would be performed.
BACKGROUND: As the current standard treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease, anterior cervical decompression and fusion may result in progressive degeneration or disease of the adjacent segments. Cervical disc arthroplasty was theoretically designed to be an ideal substitute for fusion by preserving motion at the operative level and delaying adjacent level degeneration. However, it remains unclear whether arthroplasty achieves that aim.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We investigated whether cervical disc arthroplasty was associated with (1) better function (neck disability index, pain assessment, SF-36 mental and physical health surveys, neurologic status) than fusion, (2) a lower incidence of reoperation and major complications, and (3) a lower risk of subsequent adjacent segment degeneration.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and identified 503 papers. Of these, we identified 13 reports from 10 randomized controlled trials involving 2227 patients. We performed a meta-analysis of functional scores, rates of reoperation, and major complications. The strength of evidence was evaluated by using GRADE profiler software. Of the 10 trials, six trials including five prospective multicenter FDA-regulated studies were sponsored by industry. The mean follow-ups of the 10 trials ranged from 1 to 5 years.
RESULTS: Compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, cervical disc arthroplasty had better mean neck disability indexes (95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02), neurologic status (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08), with a reduced incidence of reoperation related to the index surgery (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79), and major surgical complications (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.75) at a mean of 1 to 3 years. However, the operation rate at adjacent levels after two procedures was similar (95% CI, 0.31-1.27). The three studies with longer mean follow-ups of 4 to 5 years also showed similar superiority of all four parameters of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion.
CONCLUSIONS: For treating symptomatic cervical disc disease, cervical disc arthroplasty appears to provide better function, a lower incidence of reoperation related to index surgery at 1 to 5 years, and lower major complication rates compared with fusion. However, cervical disc arthroplasty did not reduce the reoperation rate attributable to adjacent segment degeneration than fusion. Further, it is unclear whether these differences in subsequent surgery including arthroplasty revisions will persist beyond 5 years.
The choice of a specific surgical technique should be based on its benefits and harms. Previous reviews have shown that the benefit of surgery over conservative care is not clearly demonstrated in patients with disorders of the cervical spine. Also, no additional benefit of fusion upon anterior decompression techniques could be found. A clear overview of other surgical techniques is lacking. We therefore aimed to assess the benefits and harms of cervical spinal surgery in patients with cervical disorders. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL up to June 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected which included adults with cervical disorders receiving a surgical intervention and that reported at least 1 clinically relevant outcome measure (eg, pain, function, recovery). Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group and extracted the data. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE method. We included 39 RCTs comparing different surgical interventions. We found low-quality evidence for no difference in effectiveness between various surgical techniques used for anterior discectomy. There is a small, clinically irrelevant benefit on recovery and pain in favour of prosthetic disc surgery when compared with fusion techniques. Unfortunately, in these studies the authors had a clear conflict of interest. The differences in benefits and harms between the various surgical techniques are small. The surgeon, patient, and health care provider can therefore make the choice of any surgical technique based on experience, preferences, or costs.
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a standard treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease, but pseudarthrosis and accelerated adjacent-level disc degeneration may develop. Cervical disc arthroplasty was developed to preserve the kinematics of the functional spinal unit. Trials comparing arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion have shown unclear benefits in terms of clinical results, neck motion at the operated level, adverse events, and the need for secondary surgical procedures.
METHODS: Only randomized clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis, and the search strategy followed the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each included study and extracted the relevant data.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials were included; twelve studies were Level I and fifteen were Level II. The results of the meta-analysis indicated longer operative times, more blood loss, lower neck and arm pain scores reported on a visual analog scale, better neurological success, greater motion at the operated level, fewer secondary surgical procedures, and fewer such procedures that involved supplemental fixation or revision in the arthroplasty group compared with the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group. These differences were significant (p < 0.05). The two groups had similar lengths of hospital stay, Neck Disability Index scores, and rates of adverse events, removals, and reoperations (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis revealed that anterior cervical discectomy and fusion was associated with shorter operative times and less blood loss compared with arthroplasty. Other outcomes after arthroplasty (length of hospital stay, clinical indices, range of motion at the operated level, adverse events, and secondary surgical procedures) were superior or equivalent to the outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
STUDY DESIGN.: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE.: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating cervical disc herniation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Cervical disc herniation is 1 of the 23 specific disorders included in the CANS (Complaints of the Arm, Neck, and/or Shoulder) model. Treatment options range from conservative to surgical, but evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is not yet well documented. METHODS.: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and CINAHL were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) up to February 2009. Two reviewers independently selected relevant studies, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted data. RESULTS.: Pooling of the data was not possible; thus, a best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results. Of the 11 RCTs included, 1 compared conservative with surgical intervention, and 10 compared various surgical interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of conservative treatment (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cortisonics, and physical therapy) compared with percutaneous nucleoplasty. Moderate evidence was found for the effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) using a titanium cage compared with ACDF using polymethyl methacrylate, and for BRYAN cervical disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) prostheses compared with ACDF using allograft bone and plating. No outcomes regarding adjacent-level disease were reported. There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of ACD compared with ACDF. Only limited or no evidence was found for the other surgical interventions. CONCLUSION.: No evidence for effectiveness of conservative treatment compared with surgery was found. Although there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of some surgical interventions, no unequivocal evidence for the superiority of 1 particular surgical treatment was found. Worldwide, most patients receive supplementary implants; however, cervical discectomy without graft may be preferred because of similar outcomes, lower costs, and possibly a lower risk of adjacent-level disease. More high-quality RCTs using validated outcome measures (including adjacent level disease) are needed.
Journal»European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been increasingly used as an alternative to fusion surgery in patients with pain or neurological symptoms in the cervical spine who do not respond to non-surgical treatment. A systematic literature review has been conducted to evaluate whether CTDR is more efficacious and safer than fusion or non-surgical treatment. Published evidence up to date is summarised qualitatively according to the GRADE methodology. After 2 years of follow-up, studies demonstrated statistically significant non-inferiority of CTDR versus fusion with respect to the composite outcome 'overall success'. Single patient relevant endpoints such as pain, disability or quality of life improved in both groups with no superiority of CTDR. Both technologies showed similar complication rates. No evidence is available for the comparison between CTDR and non-surgical treatment. In the long run improvement of health outcomes seems to be similar in CTDR and fusion, however, the study quality is often severely limited. After both interventions, many patients still face problems. A difficulty per se is the correct diagnosis and indication for surgical interventions in the cervical spine. CTDR is no better than fusion in alleviating symptoms related to disc degeneration in the cervical spine. In the context of limited resources, a net cost comparison may be sensible. So far, CTDR is not recommended for routine use. As many trials are ongoing, re-evaluation at a later date will be required. Future research needs to address the relative effectiveness between CTDR and conservative treatment.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating cervical degenerative diseases.
METHODS:
We conducted a comprehensive search in the electronic databases including Pubmed, Medline, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, CNKI and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction from archives. All data were performed with Review Manager 5.2 software. The relative risk (RR) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated for count data. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95 % CI for continuous outcomes were pooled.
RESULTS:
After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine papers were included in meta-analyses. The results of the meta-analysis indicated better neurological success, better overall success, lower incidence of secondary surgical procedures and lower incidence of secondary surgical procedures in TDA group than in ACDF group. After removing a study with considerable weight, TDA group displayed lower incidence of dysphagia and dysphonia than ACDF group.
CONCLUSION:
This meta-analysis revealed that the clinical outcomes of TDA are equivalent or superior to ACDF.
