Skip to main content
main-content

27.09.2016 | Review Article | Ausgabe 2/2017

European Spine Journal 2/2017

Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zeitschrift:
European Spine Journal > Ausgabe 2/2017
Autoren:
Victor M. Lu, Lucy Zhang, Daniel B. Scherman, Prashanth J. Rao, Ralph J. Mobbs, Kevin Phan
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s00586-016-4791-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Purpose

The traditional surgical approach to treat multi-level cervical disc disease (mCDD) has been anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There has been recent development of other surgical approaches to further improve clinical outcomes. Collectively, when elements of these different approaches are combined in surgery, it is known as hybrid surgery (HS) which remains a novel treatment option. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of HS versus ACDF for the treatment of mCDD.

Methods

Relevant articles were identified from six electronic databases from their inception to January 2016.

Results

From 8 relevant studies identified, 169 patients undergoing HS were compared with 193 ACDF procedures. Operative time was greater after HS by 42 min (p < 0.00001), with less intraoperative blood loss by 26 mL (p < 0.00001) and shorter return to work by 32 days (p < 0.00001). In terms of clinical outcomes, HS was associated with greater C2–C7 range of motion (ROM) preservation (p < 0.00001) and less functional impairment (p = 0.008) after surgery compared to ACDF. There was no significant difference between HS and ACDF with respect to postoperative pain (p = 0.12). The postoperative course following HS was not significantly different to ACDF in terms of length of stay (p = 0.24) and postoperative complication rates (p = 0.18).

Conclusions

HS is a novel surgical approach to treat mCDD, associated with a greater operative time, less intraoperative blood loss and comparable if not superior clinical outcomes compared to ACDF. While it remains a viable consideration, there is a lack of robust clinical evidence in the literature. Future large prospective registries and randomised trials are warranted to validate the findings of this study.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Supplementary material 1 (EPS 386 kb)
586_2016_4791_MOESM1_ESM.eps
Supplementary material 2 (EPS 376 kb)
586_2016_4791_MOESM2_ESM.eps
Supplementary material 3 (EPS 397 kb)
586_2016_4791_MOESM3_ESM.eps
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

European Spine Journal 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise