metricas
covid
Buscar en
Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología Less superior adjacent syndrome and lower reoperation rate. Medium- and long-te...
Información de la revista
Vol. 68. Núm. 2.
Páginas T168-T178 (marzo - abril 2024)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
519
Vol. 68. Núm. 2.
Páginas T168-T178 (marzo - abril 2024)
Review article
Acceso a texto completo
Less superior adjacent syndrome and lower reoperation rate. Medium- and long-term results of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical arthrodesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Menor síndrome adyacente superior y menor tasa de reoperación. Resultados a mediano y a largo plazo de la artroplastia cervical frente a la artrodesis cervical anterior: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados
Visitas
519
J.H. Núñeza,b,
Autor para correspondencia
hassan2803med@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, B. Escuderoa, J.D. Montenegroa, M.J. Jiménez-Jiméneza, J. Martínez-Peñaa, M. Surrocaa, D. Bosch-Garcíaa,c
a Unidad de Columna Vertebral, Servicio de Traumatología y Cirugía Ortopédica, Hospital Universitario de Mutua Terrassa, Tarrasa (Barcelona), Spain
b Unidad de Columna, Artro-Esport, Centro Médico Teknon, Barcelona, Spain
c Grup Traumatologic de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
Contenido relacionado
J.H. Núñez, B. Escudero, J.D. Montenegro, M.J. Jiménez-Jiménez, J. Martínez-Peña, M. Surroca, D. Bosch-García
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (5)
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Tablas (1)
Table 1. Basal characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
Material adicional (1)
Abstract
Objective

To compare medium- and long-term postoperative surgical results, especially the adjacent syndrome rate, adverse event rate, and reoperation rate, of patients operated on with cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical arthrodesis in published randomized clinical trials (RCTs), at one cervical level.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thirteen RCTs were selected. The clinical, radiological and surgical results were analyzed, taking the adjacent syndrome rate and the reoperation rate as the primary objective of the study.

Results

Two thousand nine hundred and sixty three patients were analyzed. The cervical arthroplasty group showed a lower rate of superior adjacent syndrome (P<0.001), lower reoperation rate (P<0.001), less radicular pain (P=0.002), and a better score of neck disability index (P=0.02) and SF-36 physical component (P=0.01). No significant differences were found in the lower adjacent syndrome rate, adverse event rate, neck pain scale, or SF-36 mental component. A range of motion of 7.91° was also found at final follow-up, and a heterotopic ossification rate of 9.67% in patients with cervical arthroplasty.

Conclusion

In the medium and long-term follow-up, cervical arthroplasty showed a lower rate of superior adjacent syndrome and a lower rate of reoperation. No statistically significant differences were found in the rate of inferior adjacent syndrome or in the rate of adverse events.

Keywords:
Spine
Cervical
Arthroplasty
Arthrodesis
Results
Meta-analysis
Resumen
Objetivo

Comparar a mediano y a largo plazo los resultados quirúrgicos postoperatorios, sobre todo la tasa del síndrome adyacente, la tasa de eventos adversos y la tasa de reoperación, de los pacientes operados con artroplastia cervical o artrodesis cervical anterior en los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA) publicados de un nivel cervical.

Métodos

Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis. Se seleccionaron 13 ECA. Se analizaron los resultados clínicos, radiológicos y quirúrgicos, tomando como variables primarias la tasa del síndrome adyacente, la tasa de eventos adversos y la tasa de reoperación.

Resultados

Fueron 2.963 los pacientes analizados. El grupo de artroplastia cervical mostró una menor tasa de síndrome adyacente superior (p<0,001), una menor tasa de reoperación (p<0,001), un menor dolor radicular (p=0,002) y una mejor puntuación en el índice de discapacidad cervical (p=0,02) y en el componente físico SF-36 (p=0,01). No se encontraron diferencias significativas en la tasa del síndrome adyacente inferior, en la tasa de eventos adversos, en el dolor cervical ni en el componente mental SF-36. En la artroplastia cervical se halló un rango de movilidad medio de 7,91 grados en el seguimiento final y una tasa de osificación heterotópica del 9,67%.

Conclusión

En el seguimiento a mediano y a largo plazo, la artroplastia cervical mostró una menor tasa de síndrome adyacente superior y una menor tasa de reintervención. No se hallaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la tasa del síndrome adyacente inferior ni en la tasa de eventos adversos.

Palabras clave:
Columna vertebral
Cervical
Artroplastia
Artrodesis
Resultados
Metaanálisis
Texto completo
Introduction

Ever since Robinson and Smith published the results of anterior cervical arthrodesis (ACA) in 1958, this has been the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc degenerative disease (CDDD).1 A recent study pointed out that 84.3% of spinal column surgeons use ACA as their standard surgical technique for CDDD.2 CDDD, which includes cervical discopathy and cervical hernias, is considered to be one of the chief causes of work disability.3,4 At the present time some studies describe an increasing tendency to use cervical surgery in the near future, above all in the population aged from 45 to 54 years old.4,5

Many studies have found ACA to be a successful procedure that offers excellent relief of the symptoms and significantly improves the quality of life.2,6,7 Nevertheless, it is also associated with certain complications, such as pseudoarthrosis, a lack of instrumentation and the adjacent segment syndrome. The latter may be one of the most important complications, as it leads to secondary surgery in the patients.2,8,9 As ACA creates solid bone fusion, it may change the range of movement and the mechanical load on adjacent segments, and this may cause adjacent segment disease or syndrome.8,9 Hilibrand et al. found that symptomatic adjacent segment syndrome affects more than one quarter of all patients within the 10 years after an ACA.10 Lee et al. found that after ACA secondary surgery in the adjacent segments occurred in a relatively constant proportion of 2.4% of patients per year (confidence interval (CI) 95%: 1.9–3.0).11

Cervical arthroplasty (CA) emerged in the 1990s to prevent the risks of a lack of fusion and adjacent syndrome, with the advantage of preserving physiological movement while maintaining the height of the disc and segmentary lordosis.12–15 Due to these advantages, CA has been increasingly used over recent years.5 However, CA also has certain disadvantages, the most common of which are implant failure and heterotopic ossification.16,17

Several previous meta-analyses compared the advantages and drawbacks of CA and ACA, mainly over a short-term follow-up periods (2 years).15,16,18 Few studies have analyzed their efficacy over the mid (5 year follow-up) or long term (more than 7 years of follow-up), and they found no fully conclusive results.19–23 One limitation of these meta-analyses is that they mix studies of patients operated at 1 and 2 cervical levels.15,16,18–22 Furthermore, previously published works3 as well as the latest randomized clinical trials (RCT) published with a 5 year follow-up24,25 found no advantages for CA in reducing the incidence of adjacent segment syndrome. Based on the hypothesis that it will be possible to detect differences between medium and long-term follow-up periods, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to update and compare clinical, radiological and surgical results, above all in terms of adjacent segment syndrome, adverse events and the re-operation of patients operated using CA or ACA in RCT at a single cervical level.

Material and methodsLiterature search strategy

Systematic review and meta-analysis. This meta-analysis was undertaken following the stipulations of the declaration Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).26 The systematic review was carried out following the recommendations of the Manual Cochrane para Revisiones Sistemáticas de Intervenciones.27 An electronic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library until 1 January 2023 for RCT that compared CA with ACA. The search strategy used the following key words in English and Spanish: “anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or artrodesis cervical anterior”, “ACDF or ACA”, “cervical disc arthroplasty or artroplastia cervical”, “CDA or CA”, “randomized control trial or ensayos clínicos aleatorizados”, or “RCT or ECA”. The bibliographical search was restricted to the English and Spanish languages. Additional strategies for the identification of studies included consultation with experts and the use of “associated papers” functions.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for study identification were as follows: (1) RCT which compare 2 surgical procedures (ACA and CA); (2) studies that compare surgery at a single cervical level; (3) with a follow-up time of at least 60 months; and (4) studies which report on at least one result associated with the variables studied. The meta-analysis excluded studies which (1) lacked comparative data, (2) had an insufficient follow-up time, (3) were biomechanical or in vitro, and (4) were presentations in conferences, editorials or summaries.

The selection of studies

Two of the authors evaluated the eligibility of the search results. The complete text was read intensively when the results fulfilled the inclusion criteria. If any conflict arose between the 2 reviewers, a third reviewer was consulted to reach a decision.

Data extraction

Data were extracted from the main texts and the complementary appendices. Data were grouped in the following way: (1) general characteristics, such as the first author, year of publication, clinical trial number, patients included, age, sex, type of prosthesis, follow-up time and losses during follow-up; (2) the primary variables studied: superior adjacent syndrome, inferior adjacent syndrome and re-operation rate, (3) secondary variables studied: cervical disability index (CDI), cervical AVS, radicular AVS, 36 item short format health survey (SF-36) covering physical and mental aspects, rate of adverse events, rate of high grade heterotopic ossification and the range of movement of the operated cervical segment.

Quality evaluation

The quality of the RCT was assessed using version 5.3 of the Review Manager programme (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, 2014) to evaluate the risk of bias. The assessment methodology consisted of the following steps: generation of random sequences, hiding the assignation, blinding, incomplete result data and the selective reporting of results. Scores were analyzed in an evaluation of the general risk of bias for a RCT: 91) “low risk of bias”; 92) “some concerns”; or (3) “high risk of bias”.

Statistical analysis

The descriptive statistics used were the average and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, and distribution and percentage for categorical variables. The meta-analysis was performed using version 5.3 of the Cochrane Community Review Manager. The odds ratio (OR) was used to evaluate binary variables, while the average standard difference (ASD) was used for continuous variables, with a 95% CI. The heterogeneity of the studies was calculated using the I2 test. The random effects inverse variance model was applied. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05.

ResultsBibliographical review

The first search of the database identified 2995 papers (PubMed: 1508, Embase: 1031, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library: 384). The detailed selection of the bibliography is described in the flowchart of Fig. 1. A total of 1663 studies were eliminated because they were duplicated, 1235 studies were excluded due to their titles and abstracts, and 97 studies were eliminated because of other reasons. The final result was the identification of 13 studies.24,25,28–38Fig. 2 shows a summary of the risk of bias.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart. PRISMA chart showing the number of papers excluded in different stage of the selection process.

(0.32MB).
Figure 2.

Summary of the risk of bias. The judgements of the reviewers on each item of risk of bias for each study included: green is “low risk of bias”, red is “high risk of bias”, and yellow is “uncertain risk of bias”.

(0.47MB).
Study characteristics

Table 1 shows the general characteristics of each study.24,25,28–38 The meta-analysis included a total of 2936 patients, with 1549 CA patients and 1387 ACA patients.24,25,28–38 Their average age was 44.2 years (SD 2.2) in the CA group and 44.7 years (SD 1.9) in the ACA group.24,25,28,29,32–34,37,38 52.1% of the CA group were women, as were 51.4% of the ACA group.24,25,28–30,32–34,36–38

Table 1.

Basal characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Study  Year  Entry  Financing  No. of centres  Follow-up (months)  No. of patientsAgeSex (F)Type of prosthesis  Type of ACA 
            CA  ACA  CA  SD  ACA  SD  CA  ACA     
NECK trial  2022  NTR1289  Braun Medical  60  35  36  46.5  8.7  47.5  18  22  Activ®  Box 
Vaccaro et al.  2018  NM  Not financed  18  84  151  140  43.4  7.5  44.4  7.8  70  72  SECURE-C  Box+plate 
Janssen et al.  2015  NCT00291018  Depuy Synthes  13  84  103  106  42.1  8.4  43.5  7.1  57  57  ProDisc-C  Box+plate 
Loumeau et al.  2016  #G030059  Depuy Synthes  84  22  22  NM  NM  NM  NM  NM  NM  ProDisc-C  Box+plate 
Burkus et al.  2014  NCT00642876  Medtronic Spinal  31  84  276  265  43.3  NM  43.9  NM  148  143  Prestige ST  Box+plate 
Philips et al.  2015  NM  NuVasive, Inc  24  60  224  192  49.3  43.7  8.3  105  89  PCM  Box+plate 
Hou et al.  2016  NM  Not financed  60  56  51  46.3  7.8  48.5  8.3  21  20  Mobi-C®  Box 
Radcliff et al.  2017  NCT00389597  Zimmer Biomet  23  84  164  81  43.3  9.2  44.0  8.2  86  45  Mobi-C®  Box+plate 
Coric et al.  2018  NCT00374413  SpinalMotion, Inc  21  60  136  133  43.7  7.76  43.9  7.39  85  74  Kineflex|C  Box+plate 
Lavelle  2018  NCT00437190  Medtronic  38  120  242  221  44.4  NM  44.7  NM  132  108  BRAYN  Box+plate 
Sasso  2017  NM  Medtronic  120  22  25  NM  NM  NM  NM  NM  NM  BRAYN  Box+plate 
Donk  2016  ISRCTN41681847  Not financed  108  50  47  44.1  6.4  43.1  7.5  26  22  BRAYN  Box 
NORCAT trial  2021  NCT00735176  Depuy synthes  60  68  68  44.7  7.2  43.4  6.8  36  37  Discover  Box 

CA: cervical arthroplasty; ACA: anterior cervical arthrodesis; SD: standard deviation; No.: number; NM: not mentioned.

Three studies used the BRYAN® cervical disc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.),30–32 2 studies used the ProDisc-C® cervical disc (Depuy-Synthes Spine, Raynham, MA, U.S.A.),34,35 2 studies used the Mobi-C® cervical disc (Zimmer Biomet, Varsovia, IN, U.S.A.)28,38 and each one of the other 6 studies used a different model of CA.24,25,29,33,36,37 There were also differences in the type of ACA used; 4 studies used boxes without plates,24,25,32,38 while the remaining 9 studies used boxes with plates.28–31,33–37

Evaluation of bias

Fig. 2 shows the results of bias assessment. All 13 studies describe suitable methods of randomization24,25,28–38; 5 studies blinded the patients as well as the researchers.28–32,38 The demographic data on age and sex at the start of the study were similar in both treatment groups studied in all of the studies. All 13 studies contained descriptions of patient abandonment and withdrawal. Ten of the 13 studies were financed by the industry32,33,38 (Table 1).

Primary objective results: superior adjacent syndrome, inferior adjacent syndrome, the adverse events rate and the re-operation rate

Eight studies reported on the incidence of superior adjacent syndrome.24,28,30,32–34,36,37 The overall results showed an incidence of superior adjacent syndrome that was significantly lower in the CA group (OR=0.49; 95% CI: 0.37–0.65; P<.001), with zero heterogeneity (I2=0%; P=.78) (Fig. 3a). Only two studies reported the incidence of inferior adjacent syndrome.28,37 No statistically significant differences were found in the results as a whole between both groups in terms of the incidence of inferior adjacent syndrome (OR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.34–1.44; P=.33), with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I2=53%; P=.14) (Fig. 3b).

Figure 3.

(a) Forest plot of the superior adjacent syndrome. (b) Forest plot of the inferior adjacent syndrome. ACA: anterior cervical arthrodesis; CA: cervical arthroplasty; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; OR: odds ratio.

(0.37MB).

No differences were found in the incidence of adverse events (OR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.34–1.44; P=.33), with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I2=53%; P=.14) (Fig. 4a). Nevertheless, a significantly higher incidence of re-operation was found in the ACA group (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.32–0.70; P<.001), with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I2=47%; P=.03) (Fig. 4b).

Figure 4.

(a) Forest plot of the adverse events rate. (b) Forest plot of the re-operation rate. ACA: anterior cervical arthrodesis; CA: cervical arthroplasty; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; OR: odds ratio.

(0.53MB).
Secondary objective results: cervical disability index, cervical AVS, radicular AVS, mental and physical components of the SF-36, heterotopic ossification rate and range of movement

Eight studies identified CDI data. They included 797 patients in the CA group and 664 patients in the ACA group.24,28,33–38 Significant differences in favour of CA were found in the CDI (ASD=−0.16; 95% CI: −0.29 to −0.02; P=.02), with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I2=34%; P=0.16) (Fig. 5a). Cervical and radicular AVS was analyzed in 7 studies, with 742 patients in the CA group and 606 patients in the ACA group.24,28,33–37 The overall results showed no significant differences in terms of cervical AVS between both groups (ASD=−0.16; 95% CI: −0.35–0.02; P=.08) with a moderate level of heterogeneity (I2=59%; P=.02) (Fig. 5b). However, significant differences were found in favour of the CA group in radicular AVS (ASD=−0.17; 95% CI: −0.28 to −0.06; P=.002), with a slight degree of heterogeneity (I2=1%; P=.41) (Fig. 5c).

Figure 5.

(a) Forest plot of the cervical disability index (CDI). (b) Forest plot of cervical AVS. (c) Forest plot of radicular AVS. (d) Forest plot of the SF-36 physical component. (e) Forest plot of the SF-36 mental component. ACA: anterior cervical arthrodesis; ASD: average standard deviation; AVS: analogue visual scale; CA: cervical arthroplasty; CDI: cervical disability index; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.

(0.64MB).

Respecting the 36 item short form health questionnaire (SF-36) (which covers physical and mental aspects), 7 studies included analysis of the physical aspects24,28,32–34,36,37 and 6 studies included analysis of the mental aspects.24,28,32–34,37 The overall results showed that the physical component of the SF-36 significantly favoured the CA group (ASD=0.13; 95% CI: 0.03–0.24; P=.01) with zero heterogeneity (I2=0%; P=.44) (Fig. 5d). No significant differences were found between both groups in terms of the SF-36 mental component (ASD=0.09; 95% CI: −0.15 to 0.34; P=.47), with a moderate degree of heterogeneity (I2=71%; P=.004) (Fig. 5e).

A 9.67% rate of high-grade heterotopic ossification was found in the group of CA patients.28,29,33–38 (Appendix A, Annex 1a). The total results indicate that there is a significantly higher rate of movement in the CA group in the operated segment (ASD=2.97; 95% CI: 1.77–4.17; P<.001), with a severe level of heterogeneity (I2=97%; P<.001) (Appendix A, Annex 1b).28,34,37,38 Follow-up of the degree of movement at the level with CA showed 7.91 (SD 1.9)28–30,33–38 (Appendix A, Annex 1a).

Discussion

Numerous meta-analyses in recent years have compared the clinical and radiological results of ACA and CA with the aim of finding the advantages and drawbacks of each one. The majority of the results of these studies are not conclusive,15,16,18 and they mix patients with different numbers of operated cervical levels.19–22 Our aim in this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical, radiological and surgical results over the medium and long term. Especial emphasis was placed on the adjacent syndrome, adverse events and the re-operation of patients operated at a cervical level using CA or ACA in published RCT. Our main findings were that with a follow-up of at least 5 years, CA had a lower rate of superior adjacent syndrome, a lower re-operation rate, a higher CDI score, less radicular AVS and a higher score for the SF-36 physical component. No significant different were found in the rate of inferior adjacent syndrome, the adverse events rate, the cervical pain scale or the mental component of SF-36. Other findings in the CA group were a range of mobility of 7.91° at the end of follow-up and a heterotopic ossification rate of 9.67%.

Our study found higher superior adjacent syndrome and re-operation rates in the ACA group. The lower adjacent syndrome and re-operation rates is a constant finding in the meta-analyses39–41 and RCT published beforehand28–38; nevertheless, the last two RCT published with a follow-up longer than 5 years find differently, above all in the adjacent syndrome rate.24,25 In their meta-analysis Luo et al. found that CA had a significantly lower incidence of superior adjacent syndrome (OR=0.57; 95% CI: 0.44–0.73; P<.00001) together with a significantly lower incidence of re-operation (OR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.37–0.68; P<.00001).39 Dong et al. also found a significantly lower rate of adjacent syndrome in the CA group in comparison with the ACA group (P<.01) and that the advantage of CA in reducing re-operation of the adjacent syndrome increased over the follow-up time (P<.01).40 Wang et al. also found a lower rate of adjacent syndrome (OR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.34–0.64; P<.00001) and re-operation (OR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.29–0.87; P=.01) in the AC group.41 Nevertheless, the RCT NECKtrial reported a higher re-operation rate in the ACA group (P=.32), although it also reported the same rate of adjacent syndrome (P=.32)24 while the NORCAT RCT found no differences in the re-operation rate (P=.61) or the rate of adjacent syndrome (P=.32).25 The fact that their small sample size was a limitation in both of these studies should be taken into account,24,25 with fewer than 60 patients per CA or ACA group, and they even had a statistical power of only 80%.25 However, their differentiating strength in comparison with other RCT studied28,33–37 is that an intersomatic box was used in the ACA group without adding a fixing plate.24,25 A recent systematic review discussed whether the prevalence of adjacent syndrome degeneration in ACA is described as more common in U.S.A. papers, these being the majority of the studies analyzed in this meta-analysis.28–31,33–37 This is because in the U.S.A. cervical plates are frequently used, while in Europe plate-free ACA is more common. The latter was used in the NECKtrial24 and NORCAT25 studies, and the conclusion was that there is no answer to this question at the present time.42

There is currently debate about whether superior adjacent syndrome arises in ACA as a consequence of the restriction of movement.23–25. The greater range of movement in CA which remains during follow-up over the medium to long term is a constant finding in the RCT and other meta-analyses, showing that CA movement persists over time.22,28–30,33–38,41 Our study found a range of movement in the CA group of 7.91° at the end of the follow-up, and a heterotopic ossification rate of 9.67%. The percentage of heterotopic ossification is important, as it has been reported that the incidence of cervical adjacent syndrome is significantly higher in patients with high grade heterotopic ossification than it is in those where this is not present (22.73% vs 11.14%; P=.048).43 The inferior adjacent syndrome was harder to evaluate, given that few studies assess it separately; in our study only 2 RCT evaluate it, and they found no statistically significant differences.28,37

In the CA group, our study found a lower rate of adverse events, together with a higher CDI score, less radicular AVS and a higher physical component SF-36 score. No significant differences were found between both groups in the rate of adverse events, the cervical pain score or the mental component of the SF-36 score. The results in terms of adverse events are consistent with those of previous studies.21,22,44 The results of the secondary variables studied are similar to some other meta-analyses14,15,45; nevertheless, they differ from those of other meta-analyses, such as the ones by Luo et al.46 and Gao et al.,7 who found less cervical and radicular AVS in the CA group (P<.05) and a similar CDI in both groups (P>.05). In their meta-analysis Gendreu et al. found no statistically significant difference between the CDI (P=.37), cervical AVS (P=.79) or radicular AVS (P=.66) between both groups.20 Zhang et al. found that in the short and medium term follow-up patients treated using CA had a better CDI score and lower scores for cervical and radicular AVS.15 This discrepancy between results may be due to the heterogeneous nature of the groups.7,14–16,20,45,46 This result may indicate, as Zhang et al. pointed out, that different types of cervical arthroplasty differ in their efficacy.15 However, due to the limited number of RCT it is impossible to carry out an analysis of sub-groups stratified according to prosthesis type to evaluate the results separately. Most of the published RCT currently correspond to the BRYAN® (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.) cervical arthroplasty: 3 RCT.30–32

Certain limitations of this study should be taken into account. Firstly, it covers a small number of studies, which may lead an insufficient amount of data. Moreover, the studies included have methodological deficiencies, most commonly the lack of references about the blinding technique used. Furthermore, 10 of the studies were sponsored by the industry, and this financing may be a potential source of bias. Secondly, as in all RCT, inclusion and exclusion are applied to determine which patients analyzed were suitable for CA or ACA. That is, patients who were suitable for an ACA who were not suitable for a CA were excluded, and this restricts these conclusions to a certain patient type. Thirdly, some results show a moderate level of heterogeneity (I2>40%), such as those for the inferior adjacent syndrome, the re-operation rate, cervical AVS and the mental component of the SF-36. Adverse events have a high level of heterogeneity (I2>75%), and this may lead to distortion. Fourthly, although the patients operated using CA or ACA had a CDDD, the intervention in both groups was not the same. Different types of CA were used in the studies analyzed and different implants with or without a cervical fixation plate were used in the ACA patients, as were different types of graft (autograft or allograft). All of these differences hinder the analysis of sub-groups stratified according to type of fusion so that results can be evaluated separately. We therefore believe that further high-quality studies are still required to verify our results. Lastly, this systematic review was not included in the PROSPERO register, as it took place prior to inclusion and PROSPERO does not permit the inclusion of systematic reviews carried out beforehand.

To conclude, for the treatment of CDDD in patients who are suitable for CA or ACA, CA was found over the medium to long term to be superior to ACA in terms of a lower rate of superior adjacent syndrome, a lower re-operation rate, a better CDI score, less radicular AVS and a better score for the SF-36 physical component. No significant differences were found in the rate of inferior adjacent syndrome, the adverse events rate, the cervical pain scale or the mental component of the SF-36.

Level of evidence

Level of evidence i.

Financing

No grant (economic support) was received from any institution for the preparation of this paper.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Appendix B
Supplementary data

The following are the supplementary data to this article:

References
[1]
D. Zhang, B. Liu, J. Zhu, C. Li, F. Wei, Y. Yuan, et al.
Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between self-locking stand-alone cage and cage with anterior plate for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis.
World Neurosurg, 125 (2019), pp. e117-e131
[2]
T.C. Chin-See-Chong, P.S. Gadjradj, R.J. Boelen, B.S. Harhangi.
Current practice of cervical disc arthroplasty: a survey among 383 AOSpine International members.
Neurosurg Focus, 42 (2017), pp. E8
[3]
D. Hoy, L. March, A. Woolf, F. Blyth, P. Brooks, E. Smith, et al.
The global burden of neck pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study.
Ann Rheum Dis, 73 (2014), pp. 1309-1315
[4]
S.N. Neifert, M.L. Martini, F. Yuk, I.T. McNeill, J.M. Caridi, J. Steinberger, et al.
Predicting trends in cervical spinal surgery in the United States from 2020 to 2040.
World Neurosurg, 141 (2020), pp. e175-e181
[5]
C. Saifi, A.W. Fein, A. Cazzulino, R.A. Lehman, F.M. Phillips, H.S. An, et al.
Trends in resource utilization and rate of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion throughout the United States from 2006 to 2013.
Spine J, 18 (2018), pp. 1022-1029
[6]
G.R. Buttermann.
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion outcomes over 10 years: a prospective study.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 43 (2018), pp. 207-214
[7]
F. Gao, T. Mao, W. Sun, W. Guo, Y. Wang, Z. Li, et al.
An updated meta-analysis comparing artificial cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 40 (2015), pp. 1816-1823
[8]
J.C. Eck, S.C. Humphreys, T.H. Lim, S.T. Jeong, J.G. Kim, S.D. Hodges, et al.
Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 27 (2002), pp. 2431-2434
[9]
D.H. Park, P. Ramakrishnan, T.H. Cho, E. Lorenz, J.C. Eck, S.C. Humphreys, et al.
Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level.
J Neurosurg Spine, 7 (2007), pp. 336-340
[10]
A.S. Hilibrand, G.D. Carlson, M.A. Palumbo, P.K. Jones, H.H. Bohlman.
Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 81 (1999), pp. 519-528
[11]
J.C. Lee, S.H. Lee, C. Peters, K.D. Riew.
Adjacent segment pathology requiring reoperation after anterior cervical arthrodesis: the influence of smoking, sex, and number of operated levels.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 40 (2015), pp. E571-E577
[12]
C.C. Chang, W.C. Huang, J.C. Wu, P.V. Mummaneni.
The option of motion preservation in cervical spondylosis: cervical disc arthroplasty update.
Neurospine, 15 (2018), pp. 296-305
[13]
N. Duggal, G.E. Pickett, D.K. Mitsis, J.L. Keller.
Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty.
Neurosurg Focus, 17 (2004), pp. E9
[14]
H. Zhao, L.J. Duan, Y.S. Gao, Y.D. Yang, X.S. Tang, D.Y. Zhao, et al.
What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion? A meta-analysis from 11 studies.
Medicine (Baltimore), 97 (2018), pp. e0005
[15]
Y. Zhang, C. Liang, Y. Tao, X. Zhou, H. Li, F. Li, et al.
Cervical total disc replacement is superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.
PLOS ONE, 10 (2015), pp. e0117826
[16]
L. Shangguan, G.Z. Ning, Y. Tang, Z. Wang, Z.J. Luo, Y. Zhou.
Discover cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in symptomatic cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis.
PLOS ONE, 12 (2017), pp. e0174822
[17]
J.S. Kim, J. Dowdell, Z.B. Cheung, V. Arvind, L. Sun, C. Jandhyala, et al.
The seven-year cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty: a Markov analysis.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 43 (2018), pp. 1543-1551
[18]
H. Zhao, L.J. Duan, Y.S. Gao, Y.D. Yang, X.S. Tang, D.Y. Zhao, et al.
Comparison of the adverse events of anterior cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.
Medicine (Baltimore), 97 (2018), pp. e0015
[19]
J.H. Badhiwala, A. Platt, C.D. Witiw, V.C. Traynelis.
Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of rates of adjacent-level surgery to 7-year follow-up.
J Spine Surg, 6 (2020), pp. 217-232
[20]
J.L. Gendreau, L.H. Kim, P.N. Prins, M. D'Souza, P. Rezaii, A.V. Pendharkar, et al.
Outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty versus stand-alone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis.
Global Spine J, 10 (2020), pp. 1046-1056
[21]
Y. Zhang, N. Lv, F. He, B. Pi, H. Liu, A.C. Chen, et al.
Comparison of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc degenerative diseases on the basis of more than 60 months of follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMC Neurol, 20 (2020), pp. 143
[22]
J.H. Núñez, B. Escudero, I. Omiste, J. Martínez-Peñas, M. Surroca, F. Alonzo-González, et al.
Outcomes of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 7-year.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, (2022),
[23]
A. Jawahar, D.A. Cavanaugh, E.J. Kerr 3rd, E.M. Birdsong, P.D. Nunley.
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 (2010), pp. 1043-1048
[24]
C.M. Goedmakers, F. de Vries, L. Bosscher, W.C. Peul, M.P. Arts, C.L. Vleggeert-Lankamp.
Long-term results of the NECK trial: implanting a disc prosthesis after cervical anterior discectomy cannot prevent adjacent segment disease. 5-years clinical follow-up of a double-blinded randomised controlled trial.
Spine J, (2022),
[25]
T.O. Johansen, J. Sundseth, O.A. Fredriksli, H. Andresen, J.A. Zwart, F. Kolstad, et al.
Effect of arthroplasty vs fusion for patients with cervical radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial.
JAMA Netw Open, 4 (2021), pp. e2119606
[26]
M.J. Page, D. Moher.
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.
[27]
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook [accessed 7.12.22].
[28]
W.R. Sasso, J.D. Smucker, M.P. Sasso, R.C. Sasso.
Long-term clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 42 (2017), pp. 209-216
[29]
K. Radcliff, R.J. Davis, M.S. Hisey, P.D. Nunley, G.A. Hoffman, R.J. Jackson, et al.
Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up.
Int J Spine Surg, 11 (2017), pp. 31
[30]
D. Coric, R.D. Guyer, P.D. Nunley, D. Musante, C. Carmody, C. Gordon, et al.
Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc.
J Neurosurg Spine, 28 (2018), pp. 252-261
[31]
W.F. Lavelle, K.D. Riew, A.D. Levi, J.E. Florman.
Ten-year outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Bryan cervical disc: results from a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 44 (2019), pp. 601-608
[32]
R.D. Donk, A.L. Verbeek, W.I. Verhagen, H. Groenewoud, A.J. Hosman, R.H. Bartels.
What's the best surgical treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy due to single-level degenerative disease? A randomized controlled trial.
PLOS ONE, 12 (2017), pp. e0183603
[33]
A. Vaccaro, W. Beutler, W. Peppelman, J. Marzluff, A. Mugglin, P.S. Ramakrishnan, et al.
Long-term clinical experience with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical artificial disc for 1-level cervical disc disease: Results from seven-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial.
Int J Spine Surg, 12 (2018), pp. 377-387
[34]
M.E. Janssen, J.E. Zigler, J.M. Spivak, R.B. Delamarter, B.V. Darden 2nd, B. Kopjar.
ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 97 (2015), pp. 1738-1747
[35]
T.P. Loumeau, B.V. Darden, T.J. Kesman, S.M. Odum, B.A. van Doren, E.B. Laxer, 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, 25 (2016), pp. 2263-2270
[36]
J.K. Burkus, V.C. Traynelis, R.W. Haid Jr., P.V. Mummaneni.
Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: clinical article.
J Neurosurg Spine, 21 (2014), pp. 516-528
[37]
F.M. Phillips, F.H. Geisler, K.M. Gilder, C. Reah, K.M. Howell, P.C. McAfee.
Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 40 (2015), pp. 674-683
[38]
Y. Hou, L. Nie, X. Pan, M. Si, Y. Han, J. Li, et al.
Effectiveness and safety of Mobi-C for treatment of single-level cervical disc spondylosis: a randomised control trial with a minimum of five years of follow-up.
Bone Joint J, 98-B (2016), pp. 829-833
[39]
J. Luo, H. Wang, J. Peng, Z. Deng, Z. Zhang, S. Liu, et al.
Rate of adjacent segment degeneration of cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
World Neurosurg, 113 (2018), pp. 225-231
[40]
L. Dong, Z. Xu, X. Chen, D. Wang, D. Li, T. Liu, et al.
The change of adjacent segment after cervical disc arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Spine J, 17 (2017), pp. 1549-1558
[41]
Q.L. Wang, Z.M. Tu, P. Hu, F. Kontos, Y.W. Li, L. Li, et al.
Long-term results comparing cervical disc arthroplasty to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Orthop Surg, 12 (2020), pp. 16-30
[42]
C. Findlay, S. Ayis, A.K. Demetriades.
Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review with meta-analysis of data from a total of 3160 patients across 14 randomized controlled trials with both short- and medium- to long-term outcomes.
Bone Joint J, 100-B (2018), pp. 991-1001
[43]
H. Wang, X. Wang, H. Liu, Y. Meng, Y. Guo, Y. Hong.
Risk factors for high-grade heterotopic ossification after total disc replacement: a single-center experience of 394 cases.
Neurosurgery, 89 (2021), pp. 852-861
[44]
G.S. Zhao, Q. Zhang, Z.X. Quan.
Mid-term efficacy and safety of cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion in cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biomed Rep, 6 (2017), pp. 159-166
[45]
S. Zou, J. Gao, B. Xu, X. Lu, Y. Han, H. Meng.
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, 26 (2017), pp. 985-997
[46]
J. Luo, S. Huang, M. Gong, X. Dai, M. Gao, T. Yu, et al.
Comparison of artificial cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for one-level cervical degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 25 (2015), pp. S115-S125

This work was awarded the SECOT Foundation Prize.

Copyright © 2023. SECOT
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos