Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 2/2009

01-02-2009 | Original Article

Single-level cervical radiculopathy: clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of four techniques of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and disc arthroplasty

Authors: Arup K. Bhadra, A. S. Raman, Adrian T. H. Casey, R. J. Crawford

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Although there are several accepted methods of surgical treatment for single-level cervical radiculopathy, the choice depend on the surgeon’s preference. The techniques may vary in peri-operative morbidity, short- and long-term outcome, but no study so far has analyzed their cost-effectiveness. This study might give some insight in balancing cost and effectiveness and deciding the right technique. Sixty consecutive patients (15 each group), mean age 36 (range 24–76 years) with single-level cervical disc disease underwent surgical treatment with four different techniques in two centers over the period of 1999–2005. The four groups were—(1) plate and tricortical autograft, (2) plate, cage, and bone substitute, (3) cage only, and (4) disc arthroplasty. The data was collected prospectively according to our protocol and subsequently analyzed. The clinical outcome was assessed comparing visual analog scale (VAS) of neck pain and, short form 12 (SF12) questionnaire both pre- and postoperatively. The radiological assessment was done for fusion rate and postoperative related possible complications at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and final follow-up. The cost analysis was done calculating the operative time, hospital stay, implant cost together. The mean follow-up period was 31 months (range 28–43 months). The clinical outcome in terms of VAS of neck and arm pain and SF12 physical and mental score improvement (P = 0.001) were comparable with all four techniques. The radiological fusion rate was comparable to current available data. As the hospital stay was longer (average 5 days) with plate and autograft group, the total cost was maximum (average £2,920) with this group. There was satisfactory clinical and radiological outcome with all four techniques. Using the cage alone was the most cost-effective technique, but the disc arthroplasty was comparable to the use of cage and plate. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is an established surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy. Single-level cervical radiculopathy was treated with four different techniques. The clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness were compared in this study.
Literature
2.
go back to reference An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J (1995) Comparison between allograft plus demineralised bone matrix versus auto graft in anterior cervical fusion. Spine 20:2211–2216PubMedCrossRef An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, Stephany J (1995) Comparison between allograft plus demineralised bone matrix versus auto graft in anterior cervical fusion. Spine 20:2211–2216PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bailey RW, Badgley CE (1960) Stabilisation of cervical spine by anterior fusion. Am J Orthop 42:565–594 Bailey RW, Badgley CE (1960) Stabilisation of cervical spine by anterior fusion. Am J Orthop 42:565–594
5.
go back to reference Bishop RC, Moore KA, Hadley MN (1996) Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogenic and allogenic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg 85:206–210PubMedCrossRef Bishop RC, Moore KA, Hadley MN (1996) Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogenic and allogenic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg 85:206–210PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY et al (2002) Preliminary experience using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery 51:1343–1350 Erratum in Neurosurgery 52:693, 2003. doi:10.1097/00006123-200212000-00003 Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY et al (2002) Preliminary experience using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery 51:1343–1350 Erratum in Neurosurgery 52:693, 2003. doi:10.​1097/​00006123-200212000-00003
7.
go back to reference Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for the removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617PubMed Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for the removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617PubMed
8.
go back to reference Connolly PJ, Esses SI, Kostuik JP (1996) Anterior cervical fusion: outcome analysis of patients fused with and without anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord 9:202–206PubMed Connolly PJ, Esses SI, Kostuik JP (1996) Anterior cervical fusion: outcome analysis of patients fused with and without anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord 9:202–206PubMed
9.
go back to reference Cooper PR (2002) Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50:237–238 Cooper PR (2002) Anterior cervical plating enhances arthrodesis after discectomy and fusion with cortical allograft. Neurosurgery 50:237–238
14.
16.
go back to reference Kao FC, Niu CC, Chen LH et al (2005) Maintenance of interbody space in one and two level anterior cervical interbody fusion: comparison of effectiveness of autograft, allograft and cage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:108–116PubMedCrossRef Kao FC, Niu CC, Chen LH et al (2005) Maintenance of interbody space in one and two level anterior cervical interbody fusion: comparison of effectiveness of autograft, allograft and cage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:108–116PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE et al (1996) Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Russell LB, Seigel JE et al (eds) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 176–213 Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE et al (1996) Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Russell LB, Seigel JE et al (eds) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 176–213
20.
go back to reference McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J et al (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389PubMed McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J et al (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389PubMed
21.
go back to reference Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Anterior lateral disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224 Robinson RA, Smith GW (1955) Anterior lateral disc removal and interbody fusion for cervical disc syndrome. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 96:223–224
22.
go back to reference Robinson RA, Walker AE, Ferlic DC et al (1962) The results of interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg 44A:1569–1587 Robinson RA, Walker AE, Ferlic DC et al (1962) The results of interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg 44A:1569–1587
25.
go back to reference Shapiro S, Connolly P, Donaldson J et al (2001) Cadaveric fibula, locking plate and allogenic bone matrix for anterior cervical fusion after cervical discectomy for radiculopathy or myelopathy. J Neurosurg 95(1 Suppl):43–50PubMed Shapiro S, Connolly P, Donaldson J et al (2001) Cadaveric fibula, locking plate and allogenic bone matrix for anterior cervical fusion after cervical discectomy for radiculopathy or myelopathy. J Neurosurg 95(1 Suppl):43–50PubMed
29.
go back to reference Wang M, Leung C, Casey ATH (2005) Cervical arthroplasty with the Bryan disc. Neurosurgery 56(Suppl 1):58–65PubMedCrossRef Wang M, Leung C, Casey ATH (2005) Cervical arthroplasty with the Bryan disc. Neurosurgery 56(Suppl 1):58–65PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Single-level cervical radiculopathy: clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of four techniques of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and disc arthroplasty
Authors
Arup K. Bhadra
A. S. Raman
Adrian T. H. Casey
R. J. Crawford
Publication date
01-02-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0866-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2009

European Spine Journal 2/2009 Go to the issue