Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

Open Access 01-02-2015 | Orthopaedic Surgery

Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies

Authors: Jiaquan Luo, Ming Gong, Sheng Huang, Ting Yu, Xuenong Zou

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 2/2015

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) requiring surgical intervention between anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) and total disc replacement (TDR).

Background

The concern for ASD has led to the development of motion-preserving technologies such as TDR. However, whether replacement arthroplasty in the spine achieves its primary patient-centered objective of lowering the frequency of adjacent segment degeneration is not verified yet.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase. These databases were thoroughly searched for prospective randomized studies comparing ACDF and TDR. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis and were used to report an overall rate of ASD for both ACDF and TDR.

Results

Pooling data from 8 prospective studies, the overall sample size at baseline was 1,726 patients (889 in the TDR group and 837 in the ACDF group). The ACDF group had significantly more ASDs compared with the TDR group at 24 months postoperatively [odds ratios (OR), 1.31; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.04–1.64; p = 0.02]. The TDR group had significantly fewer adjacent segment reoperations compared with the ACDF group at 24 months postoperatively (OR, 0.49; 95 % CI, 0.25–0.96; p = 0.04).

Conclusions

For patients with one-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD), total disc replacement was found to have significantly fewer ASDs and reoperations compared with the ACDF. Cervical replacement arthroplasty may be superior to ACDF in ASD. Therefore, cervical arthroplasty is a safe and effective surgical procedure for treating CDDD. We suggest adopting TDR on a large scale.

Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T et al (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24:670–675PubMedCrossRef

Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo M, Jones PK, Bohlman HH et al (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528PubMed

Lund T, Oxland TR (2011) Adjacent level disk disease—is it really a fusion disease? Orthop Clin North Am 42(4):529–541PubMedCrossRef

Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 suppl):190S–194SPubMedCrossRef

DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH et al (2003) Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:314–323PubMedCrossRef

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(1suppl):17–21

Porchet F, Metcalf NH (2004) Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 17:E6PubMedCrossRef

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 9:275–286PubMedCrossRef

Nabhan A, Steudel WI, Nabhan A et al (2007) Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 17(3):229–236PubMedCrossRef

10.

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(6):367–371PubMedCrossRef

11.

Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC et al (2010) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 13(3):308–318PubMedCrossRef

12.

Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD et al (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 93:1684–1692PubMedCrossRef

13.

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 15:348–358PubMedCrossRef

14.

Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd, Birdsong EM, Nunley PD 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 10:1043–1048CrossRef

15.

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 95:555–561PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

16.

Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH et al (2013) A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM(r) cervical disc arthroplasty to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 2 year results from the us IDE clinical trial. Spine 38(15):E907–E918PubMedCrossRef

17.

Jiang H, Zhu Z, Qiu Y et al (2012) Cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:141–151PubMedCrossRef

18.

Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW et al (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209PubMedCrossRef

19.

Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423PubMedCrossRef

20.

Verma K, Gandhi SD, Maltenfort M et al (2013) Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Spine 38(26):2253–2257PubMedCrossRef

21.

Yang B, Li H, Zhang T et al (2012) The incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA): a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 7(4):e35032PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

22.

23.

Takeshima T, Omokawa S, Takaoka T, Araki M, Ueda Y et al (2002) Sagittal alignment of cervical flexion and extension: lateral radiographic analysis. Spine 27:348–355CrossRef

24.

Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N (2004) Long term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. Spinal Disord Tech 17:79–85CrossRef

25.

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(22):2431–2434PubMedCrossRef

26.

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 30:1165–1172PubMedCrossRef

27.

Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK et al (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17:E9PubMedCrossRef

Title: Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies
Authors: Jiaquan Luo
Ming Gong
Sheng Huang
Ting Yu
Xuenong Zou
Publication date: 01-02-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2125-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies

Abstract

Purpose

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Reversed shoulder arthroplasty with inversed bearing materials: 2-year clinical and radiographic results in 101 patients

The effect of local bone mineral density on the rate of mechanical failure after surgical treatment of distal radius fractures: a prospective multicentre cohort study including 249 patients

Axial view of acetabular anterior column: a new X-ray projection of percutaneous screw placement

Medial triceps brachii free flap in reconstructive surgery: a prospective study in eight patients

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion in treating two-level adjacent cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study

Matrix-induced autologous mesenchymal stem cell implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation in the treatment of chondral defects of the knee: a 2-year randomized study