Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) as compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease.
Methods
A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed for articles published up to March 2013. Randomized controlled trials that reported mid- to long-term outcomes (≥48 months) after CDA as compared with ACDF were included. Two authors independently extracted the articles and the predefined data.
Results
Five US Food and Drug Administration randomized controlled trials that reported 4–6 years of follow-up data were retrieved. Patients who underwent CDA had a lower mid- to long-term rate of reoperation and had greater mid- to long-term improvements in the Neck Disability Index, neck and arm pain scores, and Short Form 36 Health Survey physical component score than did those who underwent ACDF. Segmental motion was maintained in patients who underwent CDA. The mid- to long-term rates of adjacent segment disease and neurological success were not significantly different between the two groups.
Conclusions
CDA may result in better mid- to long-term functional recovery and a lower rate of subsequent surgical procedures than ACDF would. A review of the literature showed that only an insufficient number of studies had investigated adjacent segment disease; therefore, it is mandatory that adequate future research should focus in this direction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK (1993) Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of 122 patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 75(9):1298–1307
Gore D, Sepic S (1984) Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs: a review of 146 patients. Spine 9:667–671
Emery SE, Bohlman HH, Bolesta MJ, Jones PK (1998) Anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. 2- to 17-year followup. J Bone Jt Surg Am 80:941–951
Yue WM, Brodner W, Highland T (2005) Long-term results after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and plating: a 5- to 11-year radiologic and clinical follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2138–2144
Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B (2004) Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spin Disord Tech 17:79–85
Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2431–2434
Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:670–675
Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA (999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81:519–528
Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R (2002) Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 96:17–21
Tian W, Han X, Li ZY, Mao JP, Sun YQ, Albert TJ (2013) Reversal of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cervical artificial disc replacement regain motion after 9 years fusion. J Spin Disord Tech 26:55–59
Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Trost G, Haid RW, Traynelis VC (2012) Analysis of the three US food and drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical arthroplasty trials. J Neurosurg Spine 16(3):216–228
Coric D, Nunley P, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody C, Gordon C (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 15:348–358
Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ et al (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:101–107
Mummaneni P, Burkus J, Haid R, Traynelis V, Zdeblick T (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–200
Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B (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 9:275–286
Cason GW, Herkowitz HN (2013) Cervical intervertebral disc replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95(3):279–285
Bartels RH, Donk R, Verbeek AL (2010) No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 66:1153–1160
Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20:177–184
Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, Shen X, Yuan W (2012) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 21:674–680
Botelho RV, Moraes OJ, Fernandes GA, Buscariolli Ydos S, Bernardo WM (2010) A systematic review of randomized trials on the effect of cervical disc arthroplasty on reducing adjacent-level degeneration. Neurosurg Focus 28(6):E5
Shea B, Dube C, Moher D (2006) Assessing the quality of reports os systematic reviews: the Quorum statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-Analysis in context. BMJ Publishing Group, London, pp 122–139
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (eds) (2011) Chapter 9: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. ed: The Cochrane Collaboration
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A (2011) GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the journal of clinical epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64:380–382
Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV (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 13:308–318
Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, Boltes MO, Nussbaum M, James S (2013) Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine 18:36–42
Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Gordon CR, Kerr EJ, Utter PA (2013) Symptomatic adjacent segment disease after cervical total disc replacement: re-examining the clinical and radiological evidence with established criteria. Spine J 13:5–12
Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG (2011) Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: 4-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93:1684–1692
Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, Spivak J, Janssen M (2013) ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: 5-year results of a food and drug administration study. Spine 38(3):203–209
Kim S, Limson M, Kim S (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18:218–231
Robertson J, Papadopoulos S, Traynelis V (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3:417–423
Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 suppl):190S–194S
Jawahar A, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ 3rd, Birdsong EM, Nunley PD (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 J 10:1043–1048
Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ 3rd, Gordon CJ, Cavanaugh DA, Birdsong EM et al (2012) Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of three prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:445–451
Yang BH, Li HP, Zhang T, He XJ, Xu SY (2012) The incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA): a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 7(4):e35032
Barna M, Stulik J, Kryl J, Vyskocil T, Nesnidal P (2012) ProDisc-C total disc replacement. A 4-year prospective monocentric study. Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae cechoslovaca 79:512–519
Suchomel P, Jurák L, Benes V III, Brabec R, Bradác O, Elgawhary S (2010) Clinical results and development of heterotopic ossification in total cervical disc replacement during a 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:307–315
McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spin Disord Tech 16:384–389
Delamarter RB, Zigler J (2013) 5-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine 38(9):711–717
Yin S, Yu X, Zhou SL, Yin ZH, Qiu YS (2013) Is cervical disc arthroplasty superior to fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(6):1901–1919
Fallah A, Elie A, Ebrahim S, Ibrahim GM, Mansouri A, Foote CJ et al (2012) Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 7(8):e43407
Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105
Acknowledgments
The authors did not receive any funding.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ren, C., Song, Y., Xue, Y. et al. Mid- to long-term outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J 23, 1115–1123 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3220-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3220-3