Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
20 References (20 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

A meta-analysis comparing total disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative diseases.

blocked
Authors Yao Q , Liang F , Xia Y , Jia C
Journal Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 4 Primary studies 4 Primary studies (4 references)

Loading references information
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.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors Luo J , Huang S , Gong M , Dai X , Gao M , Yu T , Zhou Z , Zou X
Journal European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 12 Primary studies 12 Primary studies (12 references)

Loading references information
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.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal CMAJ open
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 15 Primary studies 15 Primary studies (15 references)

Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery for discectomy may accelerate recovery and reduce pain, but it also requires technical expertise and is associated with increased risks. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effects of minimally invasive versus open surgery on functional outcomes, pain, complications and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for reports of relevant randomized controlled trials published to Jan. 12, 2014. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. We analyzed functional outcomes and pain using standardized mean differences (SMDs) that were weighted and pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 4 trials in the cervical discectomy group (n = 431) and 10 in the lumbar discectomy group (n = 1159). Evidence overall was of low to moderate quality. We found that minimally invasive surgery did not improve long-term function (cervical: SMD 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09 to 0.31; lumbar: SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.20) or reduce long-term extremity pain (cervical: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10; lumbar: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32) compared with open surgery. The evidence suggested overall higher rates of nerve-root injury (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.84), incidental durotomy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.05) and reoperation (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.26) with minimally invasive surgery than with open surgery. Infections were more common with open surgery than with minimally invasive surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38), although the difference was not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Current evidence does not support the routine use of minimally invasive surgery for cervical or lumbar discectomy. Well-designed trials are needed given the lack of high-quality evidence.

Systematic review

Unclassified

The course and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy: a systematic review of the literature.

blocked
Journal The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 3 Primary studies 3 Primary studies (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical spine disc herniation is a disabling source of cervical radiculopathy. However, little is known about its course and prognosis. Understanding the course and prognosis of symptomatic cervical disc herniation is necessary to guide patients' expectations and assist clinicians in managing patients. PURPOSE: To describe the natural history, clinical course, and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and best evidence synthesis. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportsDiscus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 2013 was conducted to retrieve eligible articles. Eligible articles were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. The results from articles with low risk of bias were analyzed using best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We identified 1,221 articles. Of those, eight articles were eligible and three were accepted as having a low risk of bias. Two studies pertained to course and one study pertained to prognosis. Most patients with symptomatic cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy initially present with intense pain and moderate levels of disability. However, substantial improvements tend to occur within the first 4 to 6 months post-onset. Time to complete recovery ranged from 24 to 36 months in, approximately, 83% of patients. Patients with a workers' compensation claim appeared to have a poorer prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our best evidence synthesis describes the best available evidence on the course and prognosis of cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy. Most patients with symptomatic cervical spine disc herniation with radiculopathy recover. Possible recurrences and time to complete recovery need to be further studied. More studies are also needed to understand the prognostic factors for this condition.

Systematic review

Unclassified

A systematic review of RCTs with nucleoplasty - an update.

Journal Pain physician
Year 2013
Links Pubmed

This article includes 6 Primary studies 6 Primary studies (6 references)

Loading references information

Systematic review

Unclassified

Surgery versus conservative care for neck pain: A systematic review

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
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 9 Primary studies 9 Primary studies (9 references)

Loading references information
Objective: General practitioners refer patients with continued neck pain that do not respond well to conservative care frequently to secondary care for further assessment. Are surgical interventions to the cervical spine effective when compared to conservative care for patients with neck pain? Design: Systematic review. Method: The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) was followed. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to June 2011. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of adults with neck pain, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant primary outcome measure (e.g. pain, functional status, recovery), were included. In addition, treatments had to include surgery and conservative care. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE method. Results: Patients included had neck pain with or without radiculopathy or myelopathy. In total, three RCTs and six CCTs were identified comparing different surgical interventions with conservative care, of which one had a low risk of bias. Overall there is very low quality of evidence available on the effectiveness of surgery compared to conservative care in neck pain patients showing overall no differences. Conclusion: Most studies on surgical techniques comparing these to conservative care showed a high risk of bias. The benefit of surgery over conservative care is not clearly demonstrated. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis.

Authors Yin S , Yu X , Zhou S , Yin Z , Qiu Y
Journal Clinical orthopaedics and related research
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
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.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Effect of various kinds of cervical spinal surgery on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal Pain
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 13 Primary studies 13 Primary studies (13 references)

Loading references information
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.

Systematic review

Unclassified

A meta-analysis comparing the results of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Authors Gao Y , Liu M , Li T , Huang F , Tang T , Xiang Z
Journal The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 13 Primary studies 13 Primary studies (13 references)

Loading references information
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.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Effectiveness of therapeutic lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar spinal pain.

Journal Pain physician
Year 2012
Links Pubmed

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 25 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 1 Broad synthesis 25 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 27 Primary studies 25 Primary studies (27 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Among the multiple interventions used in managing chronic spinal pain, lumbar epidural injections have been used extensively to treat lumbar radicular pain. Among caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal, transforaminal epidural injections have gained rapid and widespread acceptance for the treatment of lumbar and lower extremity pain. The potential advantages of transforaminal over interlaminar and caudal, include targeted delivery of a steroid to the site of pathology, presumably onto an inflamed nerve root. However, there are only a few well-designed, randomized, controlled studies on the effectiveness of steroid injections. Consequently, multiple systematic reviews with diverse opinions have been published. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of therapeutic transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lower extremity pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of therapeutic transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain. METHODS: The available literature on lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 70 studies were identified. Of these, 43 studies were excluded and a total of 27 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 15 randomized trials (with 2 duplicate publications) and 10 non-randomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for transforaminal epidural with local anesthetic and steroids, whereas it was fair for local anesthetics alone and the ability of transforaminal epidural injections to prevent surgery. For spinal stenosis, the available evidence is fair for local anesthetic and steroids. The evidence for axial low back pain and post lumbar surgery syndrome is poor, inadequate, limited, or unavailable. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. CONCLUSION: In summary, the evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids and fair with local anesthetic only; it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids; and limited for axial pain and post surgery syndrome using local anesthetic with or without steroids.