Multilevel cervical disc replacement versus multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion: A meta-analysis

Ting-Kui Wu, Bei-Yu Wang, Yang Meng, Chen Ding, Yi Yang, Ji-Gang Lou, Hao Liu, Ting-Kui Wu, Bei-Yu Wang, Yang Meng, Chen Ding, Yi Yang, Ji-Gang Lou, Hao Liu

Abstract

Background: Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been developed as an alternative surgical procedure to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. However, patients with multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (MCDDD) are common in our clinic. Multilevel CDR is less established compared with multilevel ACDF. This study aims to compare the outcomes and evaluate safety and efficacy of CDR versus ACDF for the treatment of MCDDD.

Methods: A meta-analysis was performed for articles published up until August 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies associated with the use of CDR versus ACDF for the treatment of MCDDD were included in the current study. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and data following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement.

Results: Seven studies with 702 enrolled patients suffering from MCDDD were retrieved. Patients who underwent CDR had similar operative times, blood loss, Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores compared to patients who underwent ACDF. Patients who underwent CDR had greater overall motion of the cervical spine and the operated levels than patients who underwent ACDF. Patients who underwent CDR also had lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). The rate of adverse events was significantly lower in the CDR group.

Conclusion: CDR may be a safe and effective surgical strategy for the treatment of MCDDD. However, there is insufficient evidence to draw a strong conclusion due to relatively low-quality evidence. Future long-term, multicenter, randomized, and controlled studies are needed to validate the safety and efficacy of multilevel CDR.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of article selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias of the randomized controlled trials, +: low risk bias; ?: unclear risk bias; and −: high risk bias.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Surgery time. Forest plot of surgery time for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, IV = inverse variance, SD = standard deviation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Blood loss. Forest plot of blood loss for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, IV = inverse variance, SD = standard deviation.
Figure 5
Figure 5
NDI. Forest plot of NDI for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, IV = inverse variance, NDI Neck Disability Index, SD = standard deviation.
Figure 6
Figure 6
VAS. Forest plot of VAS for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, IV = inverse variance, SD = standard deviation, VAS = Visual Analog Scale.
Figure 7
Figure 7
ROM of overall cervical spine. Forest plot of ROM of overall cervical spine for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, IV = inverse variance, ROM = range of motion, SD = standard deviation.
Figure 8
Figure 8
ROM at the operated level. Forest plot of ROM at operated level for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, IV = inverse variance, ROM = range of motion, SD = standard deviation.
Figure 9
Figure 9
ASD. Forest plot of ASD for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, ASD = adjacent segment degeneration, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, M-H = Mantel–Haenszel.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Adverse events. Forest plot of adverse events for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, M-H = Mantel–Haenszel.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Dysphagia. Forest plot of dysphagia for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, M-H = Mantel–Haenszel.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Device-related adverse event. Forest plot of device-related adverse event for CDR and ACDF. ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, CDR = cervical disc replacement, CI = confidence interval, M-H = Mantel–Haenszel.

References

    1. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2431–4.
    1. Barrey C, Campana S, Persohn S, et al. Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation. Eur Spine J 2012;21:432–42.
    1. Sasso WR, Smucker JD, Sasso MP, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:209–16.
    1. Radcliff K, Lerner J, Yang C, et al. Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies. J Neurosurg Spine 2016;24:760–8.
    1. Loumeau TP, Darden BV, Kesman TJ, et al. A RCT comparing 7-year clinical outcomes of one level symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) following ProDisc-C total disc arthroplasty (TDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Eur Spine J 2016;25:2263–70.
    1. Lei T, Liu Y, Wang H, et al. Clinical and radiological analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up results compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 2016;40:1197–203.
    1. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: seven-year outcomes. Int J Spine Surg 2016;10:24.
    1. Dufour T, Phong DH, Beaurain J, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of cervical arthroplasty at 2-years follow-up: comparison between single-level and multilevel procedures. Spine J 2010;1:43S–4S.
    1. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, et al. Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:1337–44.
    1. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai TY, et al. Multilevel arthroplasty for cervical spondylosis: more heterotopic ossification at 3 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E1251–9.
    1. Phillips FM, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, et al. Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:E794–9.
    1. Ren X, Chu T, Jiang T, et al. Cervical disk replacement combined with cage fusion for the treatment of multilevel cervical disk herniation. Clin Spine Surg 2016;29:218–25.
    1. Shi JS, Lin B, Xue C, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes following hybrid surgery in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis: over a 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res 2015;10:185.
    1. Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, et al. The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 2008;8:711–6.
    1. Gao Y, Liu M, Li T, et al. 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 2013;95:555–61.
    1. Wu AM, Xu H, Mullinix KP, et al. Minimum 4-year outcomes of cervical total disc arthroplasty versus fusion: a meta-analysis based on prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e665.
    1. Zhang Y, Liang C, Tao Y, et al. Cervical total disc replacement is superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2015;10:e0117826.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg (Lond, Engl) 2010;8:336–41.
    1. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, et al. 2009 Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back review group. Spine 2009;34:1929–41.
    1. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003;73:712–6.
    1. Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2016;25:213–24.
    1. Qizhi S, Lei S, Peijia L, et al. A comparison of zero-profile devices and artificial cervical disks in patients with 2 noncontiguous levels of cervical spondylosis. Clin Spine Surg 2016;29:E61–6.
    1. Grasso G. Clinical and radiological features of hybrid surgery in multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 2015;24Suppl 7:842–8.
    1. Hou Y, Liu Y, Yuan W, et al. Cervical kinematics and radiological changes after discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion. Spine J 2014;14:867–77.
    1. Fay LY, Huang WC, Tsai TY, et al. Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 2014;23:627–34.
    1. Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 2009;18:218–31.
    1. Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, et al. Fusion versus Bryan cervical disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 2009;33:1347–51.
    1. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. 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 2009;9:275–86.
    1. Fay LY, Huang WC, Tsai TY, et al. Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 2014;23:627–34.
    1. McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, et al. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:943–52.
    1. Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J 2017;26:985–97.
    1. Finn MA, Samuelson MM, Bishop F, et al. Two-level noncontiguous versus three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a biomechanical comparison. Spine 2011;36:448–53.
    1. Komura S, Miyamoto K, Hosoe H, et al. Lower incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after anterior cervical fusion found with those fusing C5-6 and C6-7 than those leaving C5-6 or C6-7 as an adjacent level. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012;25:23–9.
    1. Matsumoto M, Okada E, Ichihara D, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion accelerates adjacent segment degeneration: comparison with asymptomatic volunteers in a ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:36–43.
    1. Gore DR. Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:2463–6.
    1. Yang Y, Ma L, Liu H, et al. A meta-analysis of the incidence of patient-reported dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion with the zero-profile implant system. Dysphagia 2016;31:134–45.
    1. Yang Y, Ma L, Liu H, et al. Comparison of the incidence of patient-reported post-operative dysphagia between ACDF with a traditional anterior plate and artificial cervical disc replacement. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2016;148:72–8.
    1. Burkus JK, Haid RW, Jr, Traynelis VC, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial – presented at the 2009 joint spine section meeting. J Neurosurg: Spine 2010;13:308–18.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren