Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
Authors:
- 1 August 2018
- journal article
- review article
- Published by British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery in The Bone & Joint Journal
- Vol. 100-B (8) , 991-1001
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: Databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Inclusion criteria involved prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease. Two independent investigators extracted the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome measures were overall and neurological success, and these were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized patient-reported outcomes, including the incidence of further surgery and adjacent segment disease, were summarized and discussed. Results: A total of 22 papers published from 14 RCTs were included, representing 3160 patients with follow-up of up to ten years. Meta-analysis indicated that TDR is superior to ACDF at two years and between four and seven years. In the short-term, patients who underwent TDR had better patient-reported outcomes than those who underwent ACDF, but at two years this was typically not significant. Results between four and seven years showed significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component scores, dysphagia, and satisfaction, all favouring TDR. Most trials found significantly less adjacent segment disease after TDR at both two years (short-term) and between four and seven years (medium- to long-term). Conclusion: TDR is as effective as ACDF and superior for some outcomes. Disc replacement reduces the risk of adjacent segment disease. Continued uncertainty remains about degeneration of the prosthesis. Long-term surveillance of patients who undergo TDR may allow its routine use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:991–1001.Keywords
This publication has 49 references indexed in Scilit:
- Superiority of the Bryan® Disc Prosthesis for Cervical Myelopathy: A Randomized Study with 3-year FollowupClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2011
- Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusionEuropean Spine Journal, 2011
- Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic reviewEuropean Spine Journal, 2010
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting BiasPLOS ONE, 2008
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)Medical Care, 1992
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986