Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gore D, Sepic S (1984) Anterior cervical fusion for degenerated or protruded discs: a review of 146 patients. Spine 9:667–671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:670–675

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cason GW, Herkowitz HN (2013) Cervical intervertebral disc replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95(3):279–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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

  23. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N (2006) Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 4:98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors did not receive any funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yueming Song.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3220-3

Keywords

Navigation