Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Apr;26(4):985-997.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5. Epub 2016 Jun 17.

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

Affiliations
Review

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

Shihua Zou et al. Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been considered as a gold standard for symptomatic cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which may result in progressive degeneration of the adjacent segments. The artificial cervical disc was designed to reduce the number of lesions in the adjacent segments. Clinical studies have demonstrated equivalence of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in single segment cervical disc degeneration. But for two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration (CDD), which kind of treatment method is better is controversial.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical effects requiring surgical intervention between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) at two contiguous levels cervical disc degeneration.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO and EMBASE. We identified that six reports meet inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction from archives. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3.

Results: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, six papers were included in meta-analyses. The overall sample size at baseline was 650 patients (317 in the TDR group and 333 in the ACDF group). The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the CDA patients had significant superiorities in mean blood loss (P < 0.00001, standard mean differences (SMD) = -0.85, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = -1.22 to -0.48); reoperation (P = 0.0009, risk ratio (RR) = 0.28, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.13-0.59), adjacent segment degeneration (P < 0.00001, risk ratio (RR) = 0.48, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.40-0.58) and Neck Disability Index (P = 0.002, SMD = 0.31, 95 % CI = 0.12-0.50). No significant difference was identified between the two groups regarding mean surgical time (P = 0.84, SMD = -0.04, 95 % CI = -0.40 to 0.32), neck and arm pain scores (P = 0.52, SMD = 0.06, 95 % CI = -0.13 to 0.25) reported on a visual analog scale and rate of postoperative complications [risk ratio (RR) = 0.79; 95 % CI = 0.50-1.25; P = 0.31]. The CDA group of sagittal range of motion (ROM) of the operated and adjacent levels, functional segment units (FSU) and C2-7 is superior to ACDF group by radiographic data of peroperation, postoperation and follow-up.

Conclusion: We can learn from this meta-analysis that the cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) group is equivalent and in some aspects has more significant clinical outcomes than the ACDF group at two contiguous levels CDD.

Keywords: Anterior cervical discectomy fusion; Cervical disc arthroplasty; Cervical disc degeneration; Meta-analysis; Two contiguous levels.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Mar 20;95(6):555-61 - PubMed
    1. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Feb;24(2):256-62 - PubMed
    1. Eur Spine J. 2012 Apr;21(4):674-80 - PubMed
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Apr 15;36(8):639-46 - PubMed
    1. Eur Spine J. 2015 Dec;24(12):2735-45 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources