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
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: The anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) is often used to treat spinal cord and nerve root compressions and the frequent use of interbody fusion (ACDF) has popularized it as a common practice associated or not with cages or plates for maintaining the intervertebral disc height.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to clarify the effectiveness of ACD compared with ACDF, with or without the use of anterior cervical spacer (Cage) or instrumentation with plate fixation (ACDFI).
METHODS: randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized trials were selected for analysis in one segmental level. The comparison criteria were the rates of success and failure with surgery (Odom's' criteria), fusion rates and kyphosis rates. Electronic search was made in the MEDLINE database (Pubmed), in the Central Registry of randomized trials of Cochrane database and EMBASE.
RESULTS: Seven studies were selected for analysis.
CONCLUSION: None
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is moderate evidence that clinical results of ACD and ACDF are not significant different. There is moderate evidence that addition of intervertebral cage enhance clinical results.There is moderate evidence that anterior cervical plate does not change the clinical results of ACD. There is moderate evidence that ACD produce more segmental kyphosis than ACDF and ACDFI, with use of cage or plate.There is moderate evidence that ACD produce lower rate of fusion than ACDF and than the cages. There is limited evidence of the lower capacity of PMMA to produce fusion. There is limited evidence that fused patients have better outcome than non fused patients.
BACKGROUND: The number of surgical techniques for decompression and solid interbody fusion as treatment for cervical spondylosis has increased rapidly, but the rationale for the choice between different techniques remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To determine which technique of anterior interbody fusion gives the best clinical and radiological outcomes in patients with single- or double-level degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009), EMBASE (1980 to May 2009), BIOSIS (2004 to May 2009), and references of selected articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised comparative studies that compared anterior cervical decompression and interbody fusion techniques for participants with chronic degenerative disc disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. Data on demographics, intervention details and outcome measures were extracted onto a pre-tested data extraction form.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-three small studies ( 2267 patients) compared different fusion techniques. The major treatments were discectomy alone, addition of an interbody fusion procedure (autograft, allograft, cement, or cage), and addition of anterior plates. Eight studies had a low risk of bias. Few studies reported on pain, therefore, at best, there was very low quality evidence of little or no difference in pain relief between the different techniques. We found moderate quality evidence for these secondary outcomes: no statistically significant difference in Odom's criteria between iliac crest autograft and a metal cage (6 studies, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.99 to1.24)); bone graft produced more effective fusion than discectomy alone (5 studies, RR 0.22 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.48)); no statistically significant difference in complication rates between discectomy alone and iliac crest autograft (7 studies, RR 1.56 (95% CI 0.71 to 3.43)); and low quality evidence that iliac crest autograft results in better fusion than a cage (5 studies, RR 1.87 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.17)); but more complications (7 studies, RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.92)).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When the working mechanism for pain relief and functional improvement is fusion of the motion segment, there is low quality evidence that iliac crest autograft appears to be the better technique. When ignoring fusion rates and looking at complication rates, a cage has a weak evidence base over iliac crest autograft, but not over discectomy alone. Future research should compare additional instrumentation such as screws, plates, and cages against discectomy with or without autograft.
BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylosis causes pain and disability by compressing the spinal cord or roots. Surgery to relieve the compression may reduce the pain and disability, but is associated with a small but definite risk. . OBJECTIVES: To determine whether: 1) surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy is associated with improved outcome, compared with conservative management and 2) timing of surgery (immediate or delayed pending persistence/progression of relevant symptoms and signs) has an impact on outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 1998 for the original review. A revised search was run in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (January 1998 to June 2008) to update the review.Authors of the identified randomised controlled trials were contacted for additional published or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials allocating patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy to 1) "medical management" or "decompressive surgery (with or without fusion) plus medical management" 2) "early decompressive surgery" or "delayed decompressive surgery". DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (N = 149) were included. In both trials, allocation concealment was inadequate and arrangements for blinding of outcome assessment were unclear.One trial (81 patients with cervical radiculopathy) found that surgical decompression was superior to physiotherapy or cervical collar immobilization in the short-term for pain, weakness or sensory loss; at one year, there were no significant differences between groups.One trial (68 patients with mild functional deficit associated with cervical myelopathy) found no significant differences between surgery and conservative treatment in three years following treatment. A substantial proportion of cases were lost to follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both small trials had significant risks of bias and do not provide reliable evidence on the effects of surgery for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myelopathy. It is unclear whether the short-term risks of surgery are offset by long-term benefits. Further research is very likely to have an impact on the estimate of effect and our confidence in it.There is low quality evidence that surgery may provide pain relief faster than physiotherapy or hard collar immobilization in patients with cervical radiculopathy; but there is little or no difference in the long-term.There is very low quality evidence that patients with mild myelopathy feel subjectively better shortly after surgery, but there is little or no difference in the long-term.
Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI: -1.69, -0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI: -0.76, -0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.
