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
- 983 Downloads
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).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsACDF CDDD TDR
The present study was financially supported by National Programme on Key Basic Research Project (973 Programme; Grant No. 2012CB619105).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.
- 8.Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:759–763; discussion 759–763Google Scholar
- 20.Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD et al (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:348–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R et al (2009) Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 9(4):275–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Moatz B, Tortolani PJ (2012) Cervical disc arthroplasty: pros and cons. Surg Neurol Int 3(suppl 3):216–224Google Scholar