Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal 12/2015

01.12.2015 | Review Article

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

verfasst von: María Aragonés, Eduardo Hevia, Carlos Barrios

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 12/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To contrast the clinical and radiologic outcomes and adverse events of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a single cervical disc arthroplasty design, the polyurethane on titanium unconstrained cervical disc (PTUCD).

Methods

This is a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) with evidence level I–II reporting clinical outcomes. After a search on different databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid MEDLINE, a total of 10 RCTs out of 51 studies found were entered in the study. RTCs were searched from the earliest available records in 2005 to November 2014.

Results

Out of a total of 1101 patients, 562 were randomly assigned into the PTUCD arthroplasty group and 539 into the ACDF group. The mean follow-up was 30.9 months. Patients undergoing arthroplasty had lower Neck Disability Index, and better SF-36 Physical component scores than ACDF patients. Patients with PTUCD arthroplasty had also less radiological degenerative changes at the upper adjacent level. Overall adverse events were twice more frequent in patients with ACDF. The rate of revision surgery including both adjacent and index level was slightly higher in patients with ACDF, showing no statistically significant difference.

Conclusions

According to this review, PTUCD arthroplasty showed a global superiority to ACDF in clinical outcomes. The impact of both surgical techniques on the cervical spine (radiological spine deterioration and/or complications) was more severe in patients undergoing ACDF. However, the rate of revision surgeries at any cervical level was equivalent for ACDF and PTUCD arthroplasty.
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 Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L, Hou Y (2009) Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 33:1037–1042PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Yang YC, Nie L, Cheng L, Hou Y (2009) Clinical and radiographic reports following cervical arthroplasty: a 24-month follow-up. Int Orthop 33:1037–1042PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528PubMed Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L, Riew KD (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl. 2):223–232PubMed Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L, Riew KD (2009) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl. 2):223–232PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers’ compensation population. Neurosurgery 63:741–747 (discussion 747) CrossRefPubMed Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers’ compensation population. Neurosurgery 63:741–747 (discussion 747) CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, Shen X, Yuan W (2012) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 21:674–680PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, Shen X, Yuan W (2012) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 21:674–680PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Bartels RH, Donk R, Verbeek AL (2010) No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:1153–1160 (discussion 1160) CrossRefPubMed Bartels RH, Donk R, Verbeek AL (2010) No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:1153–1160 (discussion 1160) CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, Nogier A, Lazennec JY, Skalli W (2008) In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane: cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine 33:E6–E9CrossRefPubMed Rousseau MA, Cottin P, Levante S, Nogier A, Lazennec JY, Skalli W (2008) In vivo kinematics of two types of ball-and-socket cervical disc replacements in the sagittal plane: cranial versus caudal geometric center. Spine 33:E6–E9CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Kowalczyk I, Rabin D, Fink M, Duggal N (2010) Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus 28:1–8CrossRef Lazaro BC, Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Kowalczyk I, Rabin D, Fink M, Duggal N (2010) Effect of arthroplasty design on cervical spine kinematics: analysis of the Bryan Disc, ProDisc-C, and Synergy disc. Neurosurg Focus 28:1–8CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JJ, Quirno M, Cunningham MR et al (2010) Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine 35:E285–E289CrossRefPubMed Park JJ, Quirno M, Cunningham MR et al (2010) Analysis of segmental cervical spine vertebral motion after prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine 35:E285–E289CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, Rabin D, Duggal N (2011) Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. J Neurosurg Spine 15:630–635CrossRefPubMed Kowalczyk I, Lazaro BC, Fink M, Rabin D, Duggal N (2011) Analysis of in vivo kinematics of 3 different cervical devices: Bryan disc, ProDisc-C, and Prestige LP disc. J Neurosurg Spine 15:630–635CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen Y, Yuan W, Wu X et al (2013) The effect of range of motion after single-level discover cervical artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E158–E162CrossRefPubMed Chen Y, Yuan W, Wu X et al (2013) The effect of range of motion after single-level discover cervical artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E158–E162CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryu WH, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N (2013) Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 13:628–634CrossRefPubMed Ryu WH, Kowalczyk I, Duggal N (2013) Long-term kinematic analysis of cervical spine after single-level implantation of Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Spine J 13:628–634CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303S–309SCrossRefPubMed Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Rouleau JP, Carlson CS, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303S–309SCrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Papadopoulos S (2005) The Bryan cervical disc system. Neurosurg Clin North Am 16:629–636CrossRef Papadopoulos S (2005) The Bryan cervical disc system. Neurosurg Clin North Am 16:629–636CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Lefebvre C, Clarke MJ (2001) Identifying randomised trials. In: Egger M, Smith D, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in healthcare, 2nd edn. BMJ Publishing Group, London Lefebvre C, Clarke MJ (2001) Identifying randomised trials. In: Egger M, Smith D, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in healthcare, 2nd edn. BMJ Publishing Group, London
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D et al (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170:477–480PubMedCentralPubMed Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D et al (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170:477–480PubMedCentralPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415PubMed Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14:409–415PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA (2010) Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 10:469–474CrossRefPubMed Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA (2010) Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 10:469–474CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Hacker RJ (2005) Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 3:424–428CrossRefPubMed Hacker RJ (2005) Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine 3:424–428CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33:1347–1351PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 33:1347–1351PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Sasso R et al (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2354–2364CrossRefPubMed Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Sasso R et al (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2354–2364CrossRefPubMed
27.
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 18:218–231PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed 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 18:218–231PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC (2010) Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:367–371CrossRefPubMed Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC (2010) Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:367–371CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Coric D, Cassis J, Carew JD, Boltes MO (2010) Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:715–721CrossRefPubMed Coric D, Cassis J, Carew JD, Boltes MO (2010) Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:715–721CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Cheng L, Nie L, Li M, Huo Y, Pan X (2011) Superiority of the BRYAN(®) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3408–3414PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Cheng L, Nie L, Li M, Huo Y, Pan X (2011) Superiority of the BRYAN(®) disc prosthesis for cervical myelopathy: a randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3408–3414PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1684–1692CrossRefPubMed Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1684–1692CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Sun Y, Zhao YB, Pan SF, Zhou FF et al (2012) Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration five years after single level cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty: a retrospective controlled study. Chin Med J 125:3939–3941PubMed Sun Y, Zhao YB, Pan SF, Zhou FF et al (2012) Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration five years after single level cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty: a retrospective controlled study. Chin Med J 125:3939–3941PubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C et al (2012) Randomized, controlled multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine 37:433–438CrossRefPubMed Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C et al (2012) Randomized, controlled multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine 37:433–438CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C (2010) Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 89:831–839CrossRefPubMed Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C (2010) Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 89:831–839CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Alvin MD, Abbott E, Lubelski D et al (2014) Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J 14:2231–2245CrossRefPubMed Alvin MD, Abbott E, Lubelski D et al (2014) Cervical arthroplasty: a critical review of the literature. Spine J 14:2231–2245CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Yin S, Yu X, Zhou S, Yin Z, Qiu Y (2013) Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1904–1919PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Yin S, Yu X, Zhou S, Yin Z, Qiu Y (2013) Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1904–1919PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B (2012) A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine 37:943–952CrossRefPubMed McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B (2012) A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine 37:943–952CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434CrossRefPubMed Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH et al (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27:2431–2434CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2009) Full-endoscopic anterior decompression versus conventional anterior decompression and fusion in cervical disc herniations. Int Orthop 33:1677–1682PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2009) Full-endoscopic anterior decompression versus conventional anterior decompression and fusion in cervical disc herniations. Int Orthop 33:1677–1682PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Liao JC, Niu CC, Chen WJ, Chen LH (2008) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with cancellous allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 32:643–648PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Liao JC, Niu CC, Chen WJ, Chen LH (2008) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with cancellous allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 32:643–648PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
41.
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 34:101–107CrossRefPubMed 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 34:101–107CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 33:1305–1312CrossRefPubMed Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 33:1305–1312CrossRefPubMed
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Gao Y, Liu M, Li T, Huang F, Tang T, Xiang Z (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 95:555–561PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Gao Y, Liu M, Li T, Huang F, Tang T, Xiang Z (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 95:555–561PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN (2013) The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 13:1048–1054CrossRefPubMed Yi S, Shin DA, Kim KN (2013) The predisposing factors for the heterotopic ossification after cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine J 13:1048–1054CrossRefPubMed
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS (2010) Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 35:1556–1561CrossRefPubMed Yi S, Kim KN, Yang MS (2010) Difference in occurrence of heterotopic ossification according to prosthesis type in the cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 35:1556–1561CrossRefPubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105CrossRefPubMed Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105CrossRefPubMed
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Baron EM, Soliman AM, Gaughan JP et al (2003) Dysphagia, hoarseness, and unilateral true vocal fold motion impairment following anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112:921–926CrossRefPubMed Baron EM, Soliman AM, Gaughan JP et al (2003) Dysphagia, hoarseness, and unilateral true vocal fold motion impairment following anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112:921–926CrossRefPubMed
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2008) Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 33:940–948CrossRefPubMed Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2008) Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 33:940–948CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
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
verfasst von
María Aragonés
Eduardo Hevia
Carlos Barrios
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 12/2015
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4228-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2015

European Spine Journal 12/2015 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.