Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal 4/2017

17.06.2016 | Review Article

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

verfasst von: Shihua Zou, Junyi Gao, Bin Xu, Xiangdong Lu, Yongbin Han, Hui Meng

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been considered as a gold standard for symptomatic cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which may result in progressive degeneration of the adjacent segments. The artificial cervical disc was designed to reduce the number of lesions in the adjacent segments. Clinical studies have demonstrated equivalence of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in single segment cervical disc degeneration. But for two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which kind of treatment method is better is controversial.

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical effects requiring surgical intervention between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) at two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO and EMBASE. We identified that six reports meet inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction from archives. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3.

Results

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, six papers were included in meta-analyses. The overall sample size at baseline was 650 patients (317 in the TDR group and 333 in the ACDF group). The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the CDA patients had significant superiorities in mean blood loss (P < 0.00001, standard mean differences (SMD) = −0.85, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = −1.22 to −0.48); reoperation (P = 0.0009, risk ratio (RR) = 0.28, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.13–0.59), adjacent segment degeneration (P < 0.00001, risk ratio (RR) = 0.48, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.40–0.58) and Neck Disability Index (P = 0.002, SMD = 0.31, 95 % CI = 0.12–0.50). No significant difference was identified between the two groups regarding mean surgical time (P = 0.84, SMD = −0.04, 95 % CI = −0.40 to 0.32), neck and arm pain scores (P = 0.52, SMD = 0.06, 95 % CI = −0.13 to 0.25) reported on a visual analog scale and rate of postoperative complications [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79; 95 % CI = 0.50–1.25; P = 0.31]. The CDA group of sagittal range of motion (ROM) of the operated and adjacent levels, functional segment units (FSU) and C2-7 is superior to ACDF group by radiographic data of peroperation, postoperation and follow-up.

Conclusion

We can learn from this meta-analysis that the cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) group is equivalent and in some aspects has more significant clinical outcomes than the ACDF group at two contiguous levels CDD.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85CrossRefPubMed Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N et al (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 40:607–624CrossRef Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 40:607–624CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Fraser JF, Härtl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298–303CrossRefPubMed Fraser JF, Härtl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6:298–303CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617CrossRefPubMed Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Vossel KA et al (2000) Anterior cervical plating reverses load transfer through multilevel strut-grafts. Spine 25:783–795CrossRefPubMed DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Vossel KA et al (2000) Anterior cervical plating reverses load transfer through multilevel strut-grafts. Spine 25:783–795CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L et al (2009) Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 33:1037–1042CrossRefPubMed Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L et al (2009) Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 33:1037–1042CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L et al (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 91(Suppl 2):223–232CrossRef Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L et al (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 91(Suppl 2):223–232CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J et al (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678CrossRefPubMed Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J et al (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R et al (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:17–21PubMed Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R et al (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:17–21PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM et al (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Philadelphia, 1976) 34:101–107CrossRef Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM et al (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Philadelphia, 1976) 34:101–107CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Luo J, Gong M, Huang S et al (2015) Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:155–160. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2125-2 CrossRefPubMed Luo J, Gong M, Huang S et al (2015) Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:155–160. doi:10.​1007/​s00402-014-2125-2 CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD et al (2015) Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 22:15–25. doi:10.3171/2014.7.spine13953 CrossRefPubMed Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD et al (2015) Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 22:15–25. doi:10.​3171/​2014.​7.​spine13953 CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd et al (2010) Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 10:1043–1048. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.08.014 CrossRef Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd et al (2010) Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 10:1043–1048. doi:10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2010.​08.​014 CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS et al (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 19:297–306. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1194-3 CrossRef Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS et al (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 19:297–306. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-009-1194-3 CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB et al (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 18:218–231. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0854-z CrossRef Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB et al (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform So Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 18:218–231. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-008-0854-z CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N et al (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30:1165–1172CrossRefPubMed Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N et al (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30:1165–1172CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528CrossRefPubMed Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE et al (1998) A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine 23:1649–1656CrossRefPubMed Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE et al (1998) A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine 23:1649–1656CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH et al (2008) Motion analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:393–399CrossRefPubMed Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH et al (2008) Motion analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:393–399CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM (2010) Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine (Philadelphia, 1976) 36:721–730CrossRef Park DK, Lin EL, Phillips FM (2010) Index and adjacent level kinematics after cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion: in vivo quantitative radiographic analysis. Spine (Philadelphia, 1976) 36:721–730CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Watanabe S, Inoue N, Yamaguchi T et al (2012) Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the cervical spine after anterior cervical decompression and fusion at an adjacent level: a preliminary report. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21:946–955. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2090-1 CrossRef Watanabe S, Inoue N, Yamaguchi T et al (2012) Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the cervical spine after anterior cervical decompression and fusion at an adjacent level: a preliminary report. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21:946–955. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-011-2090-1 CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Dalury DF, Jiranek WA (2004) The incidence of heterotopic ossification after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:447–452CrossRefPubMed Dalury DF, Jiranek WA (2004) The incidence of heterotopic ossification after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:447–452CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP et al (2011) Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 20:1417–1426. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1722-9 CrossRef Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP et al (2011) Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 20:1417–1426. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-011-1722-9 CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Aragones M, Hevia E, Barrios C (2015) Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 24:2735–2745. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4228-z CrossRefPubMed Aragones M, Hevia E, Barrios C (2015) Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: a review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 24:2735–2745. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-015-4228-z CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T et al (2015) The discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy—a randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 15:1284–1294. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.039 CrossRef Skeppholm M, Lindgren L, Henriques T et al (2015) The discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy—a randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J: Off J N Am Spine Soc 15:1284–1294. doi:10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2015.​02.​039 CrossRef
34.
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Gao Y, Liu M, Li T et al (2013) 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. J Bone Joint Surg-Am 95A:555–561. doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.00599 CrossRef Gao Y, Liu M, Li T et al (2013) 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. J Bone Joint Surg-Am 95A:555–561. doi:10.​2106/​jbjs.​k.​00599 CrossRef
41.
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Laxer EB, Darden BV, Murrey DB et al (2006) Adjacent segment disc pressures following two-level cervical disc replacement versus simulated anterior cervical fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 123:488–492PubMed Laxer EB, Darden BV, Murrey DB et al (2006) Adjacent segment disc pressures following two-level cervical disc replacement versus simulated anterior cervical fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 123:488–492PubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 15:348–358. doi:10.3171/2011.5.spine10769 CrossRefPubMed 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 15:348–358. doi:10.​3171/​2011.​5.​spine10769 CrossRefPubMed
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith HE, Wimberley DW, Vaccaro AR (2004) Cervical arthroplasty: material properties. Neurosurg Focus 17:E3PubMed Smith HE, Wimberley DW, Vaccaro AR (2004) Cervical arthroplasty: material properties. Neurosurg Focus 17:E3PubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen J, Wang X, Bai W et al (2012) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21:674–680. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2094-x CrossRef Chen J, Wang X, Bai W et al (2012) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J: Off Public Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21:674–680. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-011-2094-x CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
verfasst von
Shihua Zou
Junyi Gao
Bin Xu
Xiangdong Lu
Yongbin Han
Hui Meng
Publikationsdatum
17.06.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

European Spine Journal 4/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.