Arthroplasty Versus Fusion in Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease A Cochrane Review

被引:42
|
作者
Boselie, Toon F. M. [1 ]
Willems, Paul C. [2 ]
van Mameren, Henk [3 ]
de Bie, Rob A. [3 ]
Benzel, Edward C. [4 ]
van Santbrink, Henk [1 ]
机构
[1] Maastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, NL-6229 HX Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Maastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed Surg, NL-6229 HX Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] Maastricht Univ, Dept Epidemiol, CAPHRI Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, NL-6229 HX Maastricht, Netherlands
[4] Cleveland Clin, Dept Neurosurg, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
关键词
systematic review; cervical; arthroplasty; disc replacement; meta-analysis; fusion; discectomy; Cochrane collaboration; cervical degenerative disc disease; myelopathy; radiculopathy; INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTION; 4-YEAR CLINICAL-OUTCOMES; ADJACENT-SEGMENT DISEASE; 2-YEAR FOLLOW-UP; ANTERIOR DISKECTOMY; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; INTERBODY FUSION; ARTIFICIAL DISC; SPINE FUSION; REPLACEMENT;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182994a32
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective. To assess the effects of arthroplasty versus fusion in the treatment of radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both, due to single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Summary of Background Data. There is ongoing debate about whether fusion or arthroplasty is superior in the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Mainly because the intended advantage of arthroplasty compared with fusion, prevention of symptoms due to adjacent segment degeneration in the long term, is not confirmed yet. Until sufficient long-term results become available, it is important to know whether results of 1 of the 2 treatments are superior to the other in the first 1 to 2 years. Methods. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials. We included randomized controlled trials that directly compared any type of cervical fusion with any type of cervical arthroplasty, with at least 1 year of follow-up. Study selection was performed independently by 3 review authors, and "risk of bias" assessment and data extraction were independently performed by 2 review authors. In case of missing data, we contacted the study authors or the study sponsor. We assessed the quality of evidence. Results. Nine studies (2400 participants) were included in this review; 5 of these studies had a low risk of bias. Results for the arthroplasty group were better than the fusion group for all primary comparisons, often statistically significant. For none of the primary outcomes was a clinically relevant difference in effect size shown. Quality of the evidence was low to moderate. Conclusion. There is low to moderate quality evidence that results are consistently in favor of arthroplasty, often statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:E1096 / E1107
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Single or double-level anterior interbody fusion techniques for cervical degenerative disc disease
    Jacobs, Wilco
    Willems, Paul C.
    van Limbeek, Jacques
    Bartels, Ronald
    Pavlov, Paul
    Anderson, Patricia G.
    Oner, Cumhur
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2011, (01):
  • [42] Comparison of 2 Zero-Profile Implants in the Treatment of Single-Level Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Preliminary Clinical Study of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Fusion
    Shi, Sheng
    Zheng, Shuang
    Li, Xin-Feng
    Yang, Li-Li
    Liu, Zu-De
    Yuan, Wen
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (07):
  • [43] Systematic Review of Anterior Interbody Fusion Techniques for Single- and Double-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
    Jacobs, Wilco
    Willems, Paul C.
    Kruyt, Moyo
    van Limbeek, Jacques
    Anderson, Patricia G.
    Pavlov, Paul
    Bartels, Ronald
    Oner, Cumhur
    SPINE, 2011, 36 (14) : E950 - E960
  • [44] Secondary Surgery after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis
    Zhu, Ru-sen
    Kan, Shun-li
    Cao, Ze-gang
    Jiang, Ze-hua
    Zhang, Xue-li
    Hu, Wei
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2018, 10 (03) : 181 - 191
  • [45] Single-Level Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disease Is Associated With Worse Outcomes Compared With Fusion for Spondylolisthesis in a Workers' Compensation Setting
    Anderson, Joshua T.
    Haas, Arnold R.
    Percy, Rick
    Woods, Stephen T.
    Ahn, Uri M.
    Ahn, Nicholas U.
    SPINE, 2015, 40 (05) : 323 - 331
  • [46] Spinal fusion for single-level SPECT/CT positive lumbar degenerative disc disease: the SPINUS I study
    Kaiser, Radek
    Varga, Michal
    Lang, Otto
    Waldauf, Petr
    Vanek, Petr
    Saur, Karel
    Benes, Vladimir
    Netuka, David
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2023, 165 (09) : 2633 - 2640
  • [47] Spinal fusion for single-level SPECT/CT positive lumbar degenerative disc disease: the SPINUS I study
    Radek Kaiser
    Michal Varga
    Otto Lang
    Petr Waldauf
    Petr Vaněk
    Karel Saur
    Vladimír Beneš
    David Netuka
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2023, 165 : 2633 - 2640
  • [48] Comparison of three techniques of anterior fusion in single-level cervical disc herniation
    Muñoz F.L.-O.
    García De Las Heras B.
    López V.C.
    Siguero J.J.A.
    European Spine Journal, 1998, 7 (6) : 512 - 516
  • [49] Clinical and radiologic comparison of dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease
    Li, Zhonghai
    Yu, Shunzhi
    Zhao, Yantao
    Hou, Shuxun
    Fu, Qiang
    Li, Fengning
    Hou, Tiesheng
    Zhong, Hongbin
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2014, 21 (06) : 942 - 948
  • [50] Locking stand-alone cages versus anterior plate constructs in single-level fusion for degenerative cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Nambiar, Mithun
    Phan, Kevin
    Cunningham, John Edward
    Yang, Yi
    Turner, Peter Lawrence
    Mobbs, Ralph
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 26 (09) : 2258 - 2266