Cervical Disk Replacement With Discover Versus Fusion in a Single-Level Cervical Disk Disease: A Prospective Single-Center Randomized Trial With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Effect of industry funding on outcome reporting in cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) has been shown to be an effective and safe alternative to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting noninferior or even favorable outcomes to ACDF. However, the current literature of large RCTs reporting long-term outcomes of CDA primarily comprises of the industry sponsored Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trials. As a result, CDA has yet to be universally accepted by surgeons due to concerns of bias in the current literature.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of single-level CDA and ACDF by conducting a meta-analysis of RCTs, with a subgroup comparison of IDE and non-IDE trial results.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Nineteen studies (9 IDE, 10 non-IDE) reporting the outcomes of 18 RCTs were included with a total of 3054 patients (1691 CDA and 1363 ACDF). Among CDA patients, 1229 (72.7%) were enrolled in an FDA IDE trial, while 462 (27.3%) were involved in RCTs that were not funded by industry. Minimum follow-up among the RCTs included ranged from 2 to 10 years.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes of interest included index and adjacent segment reoperation rates, postoperative disability as reported by the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Neck and Arm pain.

METHODS

A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing CDA and ACDF by pooling the outcomes of all RCTs for each outcome of interest. A subgroup analysis was then performed comparing the pooled outcomes of the FDA IDE trials and non-IDE RCTs. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and log relative risk (RR) were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Among all RCTs, there was a significantly lower risk for all secondary surgical interventions with CDA relative to ACDF (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55-1.28; p<.0001) in addition to lower risk for adjacent segment surgery (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.66-1.45; p<.0001), and index segment reoperation (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.005-0.96; p=.048). No significant differences in NDI, VAS Neck, or VAS Arm were found in the analyses comparing ACDF and CDA (p>.05). When comparing between the IDE and non-IDE trial subgroups, there were no significant differences noted in any assessed outcome (p>.05).

CONCLUSION

CDA appears to be equivalent to ACDF in reducing postoperative pain and disability, while also potentially decreasing the risk for subsequent surgical intervention, as demonstrated by the FDA IDE trials and non-IDE RCTs without industry ties. While a large number of high-quality trials for CDA do pose a risk for bias due to industry sponsorship, the current literature of high-quality RCTs without industry affiliations corroborates similar findings.

Effect of device constraint: a comparative network meta-analysis of ACDF and cervical disc arthroplasty

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Clinical trials have demonstrated that cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is an effective and safe alternative treatment to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for cervical degenerative disc disease in the appropriately indicated patient population. Various devices for CDA exist, differing in the level of device constraint.

PURPOSE

To investigate outcomes following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) versus CDA stratified based on the level of device constraint: Constrained, Semiconstrained, and Unconstrained.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 2,932 CDA patients (979 Constrained, 1,214 Semiconstrained, 739 Unconstrained) and 2,601 ACDF patients from 41 studies that compared outcomes of patients undergoing CDA or ACDF at a single level at a minimum of 2 years follow-up.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes of interest included the development of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), index and adjacent segment reoperation rates, range of motion (ROM), high-grade heterotopic ossification (HO, McAfee Grades 3/4), and patient-reported outcomes (NDI/VAS).

METHODS

CDA devices were grouped based on the degrees of freedom (DoF) allowed by the device, as either Constrained (3 DoF), Semiconstrained (4 or 5 DoF), or Unconstrained (6 DoF). A random effects network meta-analysis was conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and log relative risk (RR) were used to analyze continuous and categorical data, respectively.

RESULTS

Semiconstrained (p=.03) and Unconstrained CDA (p=.01) demonstrated a significantly lower risk for ASD than ACDF. All levels of CDA constraint demonstrated a significantly lower risk for subsequent adjacent segment surgery than ACDF (p<.001). Semiconstrained CDA also demonstrated a significantly lower risk for index level reoperation than both ACDF and Constrained CDA (p<.001). Unconstrained devices retained significantly greater ROM than both Constrained and Semiconstrained CDA (p<.001). As expected, all levels of device constraint retained significantly greater ROM than ACDF (p<.001). Constrained and Unconstrained devices both demonstrated significantly lower levels of disability on NDI than ACDF (p=.02). All levels of device constraint demonstrated significantly less neck pain than ACDF (p<.05), while Unconstrained CDA had significantly less arm pain than ACDF (p=.02) at final follow-up greater than 2 years.

CONCLUSION

CDA, particularly the unconstrained and semiconstrained designs, appears to be more effective than ACDF in reducing the risk of adjacent segment degeneration and the need for further surgeries, while also allowing for greater range of motion and better patient-reported outcomes. Less constrained CDA conferred a lower risk for index level reoperation, while also retaining more range of motion than more constrained devices.

The Fragility of Statistical Findings in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

This study employs both the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) to assess the level of robustness in the cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) literature. We hypothesize that dichotomous outcomes involving CDA would exhibit statistical vulnerability.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted to evaluate dichotomous data for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CDA literature from 2000 to 2023. The FI of each outcome was calculated through the reversal of a single outcome event until significance was reversed. The FQ was calculated by dividing each fragility index by the study sample size. The interquartile range (IQR) was also calculated for the FI and FQ.

RESULTS

Of the 1561 articles screened, 111 met the search criteria, with 35 RCTs evaluating CDA included for analysis. Six hundred and ninety-three outcome events with 130 significant (P < 0.05) outcomes and 563 nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.05) outcomes were identified. The overall FI and FQ for all 693 outcomes were 5 (IQR 3-7) and 0.019 (IQR 0.011-0.043). Fragility analysis of statistically significant outcomes and nonsignificant outcomes both revealed an FI of 5. All of the studies reported loss to follow-up (LTF) data where 65.7% (23) did not report or reported an LTF greater or equal to 5.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature regarding CDA RCTs lacks statistical robustness and may misrepresent the conclusions with the sole use of the P value. By implementing the FI and FQ along with the P value, we believe the interpretation and contextualization of the clinical data surrounding CDA will be better understood.

The Statistical Fragility of Trials Comparing Cervical Disc Arthroplasty and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative cervical pathology by using fragility indices.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RCTs comparing these surgical approaches have shown that CDA may be equivalent or even superior to ACDF due to better preservation of normal spinal kinematics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCTs reporting clinical outcomes after CDA versus ACDF for degenerative cervical disc disease were evaluated. Data for outcome measures were classified as continuous or dichotomous. Continuous outcomes included: Neck Disability Index, overall pain, neck pain, radicular arm pain, and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores. Dichotomous outcomes included: any adjacent segment disease (ASD), superior-level ASD, and inferior-level ASD. The fragility index (FI) and continuous FI (CFI) were determined for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. The corresponding fragility quotient (FQ) and continuous FQ were calculated by dividing FI/CFI by sample size.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (78 outcome events) were included. Thirteen dichotomous events had a median FI of 7 [interquartile range (IQR): 3-10], and the median FQ was 0.043 (IQR: 0.035-0.066). Sixty-five continuous events had a median CFI of 14 (IQR: 9-22) and a median continuous FQ of 0.145 (IQR: 0.074-0.188). This indicates that, on average, altering the outcome of 4.3 patients out of 100 for the dichotomous outcomes and 14.5 out of 100 for continuous outcomes would reverse trial significance. Of the 13 dichotomous events that included a loss to follow-up data, 8 (61.5%) represented ≥7 patients lost. Of the 65 continuous events reporting the loss to follow-up data, 22 (33.8%) represented ≥14 patients lost.

CONCLUSION

RCTs comparing ACDF and CDA have fair to moderate statistical robustness and do not suffer from statistical fragility.

Relative Efficacy of Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty Devices and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Pathology: A Network Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to compare patient-reported outcomes, success, complications, and radiographic outcomes directly and indirectly between different cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA) devices and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

Patients of prospective randomized controlled trials of 1-level cervical TDA with a minimum of 2 years follow up were identified in the literature. A frequentist network meta-analysis model was used to compare each outcome across the different TDA devices included and ACDF using the mixed effect sizes.

RESULTS

15 studies were included for quantitative analysis, reporting the outcomes of 2643 patients with an average follow-up was 67.3 months (range: 24-120 months), 1417 of whom underwent TDA and 1226 of whom underwent ACDF. Nine TDA devices were compared to ACDF, including the Bryan, Discover, Kineflex, M6, Mobi-C, PCM, Prestige ST, ProDisc-C, and Secure-C cervical prostheses. Several devices outperformed ACDF for certain outcomes, including Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Arm, Physical Component Score of the Short-Form Health Survey (SF PCS), neurological success, satisfaction, index-level secondary surgical interventions (SSI), and adjacent level surgeries. Cumulative ranking of each intervention assessed demonstrated the highest performance with the M6 prosthesis (P = .70), followed by Secure-C (P = .67), PCM (P = .57), Prestige ST (P = .57), ProDisc-C (P = .54), Mobi-C (P = .53), Bryan (P = .49), Kineflex (P = .49), Discover (P = .39), and ACDF (P = .14).

CONCLUSION

Cervical TDA was found to be superior on most outcomes assessed in the literature of high-quality clinical trials. While most devices demonstrated similar outcomes, certain prostheses such as the M6 were found to outperform others across several outcomes assessed. These findings suggest that the restoration of near-normal cervical kinematics may lead to improved outcomes.

Safety and Validity of Anterior Cervical Disc Replacement for Single-level Cervical Disc Disease: Initial Two-year Follow-up of the Prospective Observational Post-marketing Surveillance Study for Japanese Patients

Anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) using cervical artificial disc (CAD) has the advantage of maintaining the range of motion (ROM) at the surgical level, subsequently reducing the postoperative risk of adjacent disc disease. Following the approval for the clinical use in Japan, a post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted for two different types of CAD, namely, Mobi-C (metal-on-plastic design) and Prestige LP (metal-on-metal design). The objective of this prospective observational multicenter study was to analyze the first 2-year surgical results of the PMS study of 1-level ACDR in Japan. A total of 54 patients were registered (Mobi-C, n = 24, MC group; Prestige LP, n = 30, PLP group). Preoperative neurological assessment revealed radiculopathy in 31 patients (57.4%) and myelopathy in 15 patients (27.8%). Preoperative radiological assessment classified the disease category as disc herniation in 15 patients (27.8%), osteophyte in 6 patients (11.1%), and both in 33 patients (61.1%). The postoperative follow-up rates at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after ACDR were 92.6%, 87.0%, 83.3%, and 79.6%, respectively. In both groups, patients' neurological condition improved significantly after surgery. Radiographic assessment revealed loss of mobility at the surgical level in 9.5% of patients in the MC group and in 9.1% of patients in the PLP group. No secondary surgeries at the initial surgical level and no serious adverse events were observed in either group. The present results suggest that 1-level ACDR is safe, although medium- to long-term follow-up is mandatory to further verify the validity of ACDR for Japanese patients.

Failure in cervical total disc arthroplasty: single institution experience, systematic review of the literature, and proposal of the RUSH TDA failure classification system

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cervical total disc arthroplasty (TDA) is an alternative procedure to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion that facilitates neural decompression while both preserving motion of the spinal unit and decreasing the risk for degenerative changes at adjacent segments. However, due to its more recent introduction in clinical practice and low complication rates, the modes by which TDA may fail remain to be described.

PURPOSE

This study sought to identify the modes and frequencies of cervical TDA failure in order to propose a novel classification system.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort and systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent single or two-level TDA for cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy at a single institution and in the literature of medium and large prospective studies.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cervical TDA failure, defined as subsequent surgical intervention at the index segment.

METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent single or two-level TDA for cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy at a single institution to identify the potential implant failure modes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective data in the literature was then performed to further supplement failure mode identification and to describe the rates at which the various failure types occurred. Statistical analysis included between-group comparisons of Non-Failed and Failed patients and frequencies of each failure type among Failed patients.

RESULTS

A retrospective review at our institution of 169 patients (201 levels) identified eight failures, for a failure rate of 4.7%. Additionally, seven patients were revised who had the primary surgery at an outside institution. The systematic review of 3976 patients (4525 levels) identified 165 (4.1%) additional failures. Using this data, six primary failure types were classified, with several subtypes. These include recurrent or persistent index-level stenosis (Type I); migration (Type II) presenting as gross extrusion (A) or endplate failure with subsidence/acute fracture (B); instability (Type III) due to mechanical loosening (A), septic loosening (B), or device fracture (C); device motion loss (Type IV) such as "locking" of the device in kyphosis; implantation error (Type V) due to malposition (A) or improper sizing (B); and wear (Type VI) either without osteolysis (A) or with wear-particle-induced osteolysis (B). Stenosis (Type I) was the most common mode of failure found both through retrospective review and in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical TDA fails through six primary mechanisms. While rates of certain failures requiring subsequent surgical intervention are low, it is possible that these complications may become more prevalent upon further longitudinal observation. Thus, future application and validation of this classification system is warranted to evaluate how failure frequencies change over time and with larger patient samples.

THE PREVALENCE OF HETEROTOPIC OSSIFICATION AMONG PATIENTS AFTER CERVICAL DISK ARTHROPLASTY AT 5 YEARS

ABSTRACT Objective: This study was designed to evaluate the prevalence and grading of heterotopic ossification (HO) at five years, among patients after cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA). Methods: The CDA procedure with Activ C and M6-C prostheses was performed on 127 patients. The mean age of the cohort of patients was 38.4 years (range 18-49). The mean follow-up time was 58.4 months, ranging from 51 to 66 months. Results: Grade 1 ossifications were present in 11 (8.6 %) levels. A total of 45 (35.4 %) segments showed grade 2 HO. HO that led to restrictions in range of motion were present in 13 (10.2 %) cases. Five years after surgery, 9 (7.0 %) patients with grade 4 ossifications were found only in the M6-C artificial disk prosthesis group. In the analysis of patient survival following the occurrence of HO, all patients showed median survival of 28.3±5.6 months. The group that received the Activ C artificial disk prosthesis showed statistically longer survival (49.5±7.8 months) than the M6-C disk group. Conclusions: In our study 61.4% of patients exhibited HO after a mean follow-up of 58.4 months. In the analysis of patient survival after HO, all patients showed median survival of 28.3±5.6 months. The group that received the Activ C artificial disk prosthesis showed statistically longer survival (49.5±7.8 months) than the M6-C disk group. Level of evidence III; Cross-sectional Observational Study.

Quantitative analysis of the correlation between preoperative cervical degeneration and postoperative heterotopic ossification after cervical disc replacement: minimum 10-year follow-up data

OBJECTIVE

The authors aimed to identify factors that may be useful for quantifying the amount of degenerative change in preoperative patients to identify ideal candidates for cervical disc replacement (CDR) in patients with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up data.

METHODS

During the period from December 2003 to August 2008, 54 patients underwent CDR with a Bryan cervical disc prosthesis performed by the same group of surgeons, and all of the patients in this group with at least 10 years of follow-up data were enrolled in this retrospective analysis of cases. Postoperative bone formation was graded in radiographic images by using the McAfee classification for heterotopic ossification. Preoperative degeneration was evaluated in radiographs based on a quantitative scoring system. After univariate analysis, the authors performed multifactor logistic regression analysis to identify significant factors. To determine the cutoff points for the significant factors, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Study patients had a mean age of 43.6 years and an average follow-up period of 120.3 months. The patients as a group had a 68.2% overall incidence of bone formation. Based on univariate analysis results, data for patient sex, disc height, and the presence of anterior osteophytes and endplate sclerosis were included in the multivariate analysis. According to the analysis results, the identified independent risk factors for postoperative bone formation included disc height, the presence of anterior osteophytes, and endplate sclerosis, and according to a quantitative scoring system for degeneration of the cervical spine based on these variables, the ROC curve indicated that the optimal cutoff scores for these risk factors were 0.5, 1.5, and 1.5, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the patients who were followed up for at least 10 years after CDR, the incidence of postoperative bone formation was relatively high. The study results indicate that the degree of degeneration in the target level before surgery has a positive correlation with the incidence of postoperative ossification. Rigorous indication criteria for postoperative ossification should be applied in patients for whom CDR may be a treatment option.

The Role of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Relieving Axial Neck Pain in Patients With Single-Level Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the effects of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) on axial neck pain in adult patients receiving surgery for myelopathy, radiculopathy, or a combination of both.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers completed a librarian-assisted search of 4 databases. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores were extracted preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 48+ months postoperatively for ACDF groups and pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of 17 850 eligible studies, 37 were included for analysis, totaling 2138 patients analyzed with VAS and 2477 with NDI score. Individual VAS mean differences were reduced at 6 weeks (-2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.5 to -1.6]), 3 months (-2.9 [-3.7 to -2.2]), 6 months (-3.2 [-3.9 to -2.6]), 12 months (-3.7 [-4.3 to -3.1]), 24 months (-4.0 [-4.4 to -3.5]), 48 months (-4.6 [-5.5 to -3.8]), and >48 months (-4.7 [-5.8 to -3.6]) follow-up (P < .0001 for all endpoints). Individual NDI mean differences were reduced at 6 weeks (-26.7 [-30.9 to -22.6]), 3 months (-29.8 [-32.7 to -26.8]), 6 months (-31.2 [-35.5 to -26.8)], 12 months (-29.3 [-33.2 to -25.4]), 24 months (-28.9 [-32.6 to -25.2]), 48 months (-33.1 [-37.4 to -28.7]), and >48 months (-37.6 [-45.9 to -29.3]) follow-up (P < .0001 for all endpoints).

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF is associated with a significant reduction in axial neck pain compared with preoperative values in patients being treated specifically for myelopathy or radiculopathy. This influences the preoperative discussions surgeons may have with patients regarding their expectations for surgery. The effects seen are stable over time and represent a clinically significant reduction in axial neck pain.

Assessing the Effects of Publication Bias on Reported Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Epidemiologic Study

BACKGROUND

There have been several clinical trials as well as observational studies that have compared the outcomes of different cervical disc replacement (CDR) devices with anterior cervical disc replacement and fusion (ACDF). Although the results of these studies have provided sufficient evidence for the safety of CDR, there is still a lack of consensus in terms of longer-term outcomes, with studies providing equivocal results for the 2 procedures. In the current study, we used a novel methodology, a meta-epidemiologic study, to investigate the impact of study characteristics on the observed effects in the literature on CDR and ACDF.

METHODS

Data were abstracted from available meta-analyses regarding author, study author, year, intervention events, control events, and sample size, as well as year and geographic location of each study within the meta-analyses. We grouped the studies based on median year of publication as well as the region of the submitting author(s). Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standard errors of individual studies were calculated based on the number of events and sample size for each arm (ACDF or CDR). Further, results of outcomes from individual studies were pooled and a meta-analysis was conducted. Ratio of odds ratio (ROR) was used to assess the impact of each of these factors on estimates of the study for CDR versus ACDF.

RESULTS

A total of 13 meta-analyses were analyzed after exclusions. Using the results from 10 meta-analyses, we found that studies published before 2012 reported significantly lower odds of a reoperation after CDR (vs. ACDF), compared with studies published after 2012 (ROR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.67; P < 0.001). We did not observe a significant impact of study year on difference in estimates between CDR and ACDF for adjacent segment disease (ROR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.64-1.55; P = 0.465). The region of submitting author was also found to have no impact on results of published studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that there may be a publication bias regarding the year of publication, with earlier studies reporting lower reoperation rates for CDR compared with ACDF.

Cervical radiculopathy: is a prosthesis preferred over fusion surgery? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses on the comparison between fusion and prosthesis in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy mainly analyse studies including mixed patient populations: patients with radiculopathy with and without myelopathy. The outcome for patients with myelopathy is different compared to those without. Furthermore, apart from decompression of the spinal cord, restriction of motion is one of the cornerstones of the surgical treatment of spondylotic myelopathy. From this point of view, the results for arthroplasty might be suboptimal for this category of patients. Comparing clinical outcome in patients exclusively suffering from radiculopathy is therefore a more valid method to compare the true clinical effect of the prosthesis to that of fusion surgery.

AIM

The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcome of cervical arthroplasty (ACDA) to the clinical outcome of fusion (ACDF) after anterior cervical discectomy in patients exclusively suffering from radiculopathy, and to evaluate differences with mixed patient populations.

METHODS

A literature search was completed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE, CENTRAL and CINAHL using a sensitive search strategy. Studies were selected by predefined selection criteria (i.a.) patients exclusively suffering from cervical radiculopathy), and risk of bias was assessed using a validated Cochrane Checklist adjusted for this purpose. An additional overview of results was added from articles considering a mix of patients suffering from myelopathy with or without radiculopathy.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included that exclusively compared intervertebral devices in radiculopathy patients. Additionally, 29 articles concerning patients with myelopathy with or without radiculopathy were studied in a separate results table. All articles showed intermediate to high risk of bias. There was neither a difference in decrease in mean NDI score between the prosthesis (20.6 points) and the fusion (20.3 points) group, nor was there a clinically important difference in neck pain (VAS). Comparing these data to the mixed population data demonstrated comparable mean values, except for the 2-year follow-up NDI values in the prosthesis group: mixed group patients that received a prosthesis reported a mean NDI score of 15.6, indicating better clinical outcome than the radiculopathy patients that received a prosthesis though not reaching clinical importance.

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF and ACDA are comparably effective in treating cervical radiculopathy due to a herniated disc in radiculopathy patients. Comparing the 8 radiculopathy with the 29 mixed population studies demonstrated that no clinically relevant differences were present in clinical outcome between the two types of patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Artificial Discs in Cervical Disc Replacement: A Meta-Analysis for Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the surgical treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. Although comparison of the 2 techniques has been studied in the literature, a thorough assessment of all artificial discs between each has not been performed. The objective of the present study was to examine the long-term outcomes of 5 artificial discs.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted for studies of CDR devices for all years available. Only articles in English were included. Heterotopic ossification, adjacent segment disease, and reoperation comprised the primary outcomes of interest. Pooled descriptive statistics with effect size (ES) and 95% confidence interval were used to synthesize the outcomes for each device.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies (n = 5785) were included in the analysis. Comparison of the incidence of grade III/IV heterotopic ossification showed a significant variability between the 5 devices (P < 0.001) with ProDisc-C (ES, 38%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24%-54%) having the highest incidence rate. Overall rate of adjacent segment disease was 14% (95% CI, 7%-23%) with significant associated heterogeneity (P < 0.001). Regarding 2-year reoperation risk, the overall incidence rate was 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%), with nonsignificant variability between devices (P = 0.63). The highest rate was observed in the Discover group (ES, 4%; 95% CI, 0%-13%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present meta-analysis indicate that surgical and clinical outcomes may differ among different CDR devices. These findings may assist surgeons in tailoring their decision making to specific patient profiles. Future multicenter efforts are needed to validate associations found in this study.

Cervical disc arthroplasty: tips and tricks

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a powerful, motion-sparing treatment option for managing cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. While CDA can be an excellent surgery for properly indicated patients, it is also less forgiving than cervical fusion. Optimally resolving patient symptoms while maintaining range of motion relies on near perfection in the surgical technique. Different CDA options exist on the market, with some having long-term proven success and others in early stages of clinical trials. We discuss the different options available for use, as well as strategies of positioning, approach, disc space preparation, implantation, and fusion prevention that we believe can help improve performance and outcomes of CDA.

The Seven-Year Cost-Effectiveness of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Markov Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Markov model analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the 7-year cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc replacement (CDR) for the treatment of cervical disc degeneration.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Both ACDF and CDR are acceptable surgical options for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc degeneration. Past studies have demonstrated at least equal effectiveness of CDR when compared with ACDF in large randomized Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) studies. Short-term cost-effectiveness analyses at 5 years have suggested that CDR may be the preferred treatment option. However, adjacent segment disease and other postoperative complications may occur after 5 years following surgery.

METHODS

A Markov model analysis was used to evaluate data from the LDR Mobi-C IDE study, incorporating five Markov transition states and seven cycles with each cycle set to a length of 1 year. Transition state probabilities were determined from complication rates, as well as index and adjacent segment reoperation rates from the IDE study. Raw SF-12 data were converted to health state utility values using the SF-6D algorithm for 174 CDR patients and 79 ACDF patients.

RESULTS

Assuming an ideal operative candidate who is 40-years-old and failed appropriate conservative care, the 7-year cost was $103,924 for ACDF and $105,637 for CDR. CDR resulted in the generation of 5.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while ACDF generated 5.16 QALYs. Both ACDF and CDR were cost-effective, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $10,076/QALY in favor of CDR, which was less than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

ACDF and CDR are both cost-effective strategies for the treatment of cervical disc degeneration. However, CDR is the more cost-effective procedure at 7 years following surgery. Further long-term studies are needed to validate the findings of this model.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Radiological follow-up after implanting cervical disc prosthesis in anterior discectomy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review current literature on the comparison of the radiological outcome of cervical arthroplasty with fusion after anterior discectomy for radiculopathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CENTRAL, and CINAHL using a sensitive search string combination. Studies were selected by predefined selection criteria (patients exclusively suffering from cervical radiculopathy), and risk of bias was assessed using a validated Cochrane checklist adjusted for this purpose. Additionally, an overview of results of articles published in 21 meta-analyses was added, considering a group of patients with myelopathy with or without radiculopathy.

RESULTS

Seven articles that compared intervertebral devices in patients with radiculopathy (excluding patients with myelopathy) were included in the study. Another 31 articles were studied as a mixed group, including patients with myelopathy and radiculopathy. Apart from three studies with low risk of bias, all other articles showed intermediate or high risk of bias. Heterotopic ossification was reported to be present in circa 10% of patients, seemingly predominant in patients with radiculopathy, with a very low level of evidence. Radiological signs of adjacent segment disease were present at baseline in 50% of patients, and there is a low level of evidence that this increased more (10%-20%) in the fusion group at long-term follow-up. However, this was only studied in the mixed study population, which is degenerative by diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Although the cervical disc prosthesis was introduced to decrease adjacent level disease, convincing radiological evidence for this benefit is lacking. Heterotopic ossification as a complicating factor in the preservation of motion of the device is insufficiently studied. Regarding purely radiological outcomes, currently, no firm conclusion can be drawn for implanting cervical prosthesis versus performing fusion.

Secondary Surgery after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore whether cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in reducing secondary surgery. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled data was calculated using a random-effect model. We also used the trial sequential analysis (TSA) to further verify our results and obtain more moderate estimates. Twenty-one studies with 4208 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that compared with ACDF, CDA had fewer frequency of secondary surgery at the index level (RR, 0.47; 95%CI, 0.36-0.63; P < 0.05) and adjacent level (RR, 0.48; 95%CI, 0.36-0.65; P < 0.05), and the differences were statistically significant. In addition, in terms of the overall frequency of secondary surgery at the index and adjacent level, CDA was also significantly superior to ACDF (RR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.41-0.60; P < 0.05). TSA demonstrated that adequate and decisive evidence had been established. Regarding the frequency of secondary surgery, CDA was significantly superior to ACDF. It was supposed that CDA may be a better surgical intervention to reduce the rate of secondary surgery for patients with cervical degenerative disc disease.

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

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients and Methods

Databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Inclusion criteria involved prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease. Two independent investigators extracted the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome measures were overall and neurological success, and these were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized patient-reported outcomes, including the incidence of further surgery and adjacent segment disease, were summarized and discussed.

Results

A total of 22 papers published from 14 RCTs were included, representing 3160 patients with follow-up of up to ten years. Meta-analysis indicated that TDR is superior to ACDF at two years and between four and seven years. In the short-term, patients who underwent TDR had better patient-reported outcomes than those who underwent ACDF, but at two years this was typically not significant. Results between four and seven years showed significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component scores, dysphagia, and satisfaction, all favouring TDR. Most trials found significantly less adjacent segment disease after TDR at both two years (short-term) and between four and seven years (medium- to long-term).

Conclusion

TDR is as effective as ACDF and superior for some outcomes. Disc replacement reduces the risk of adjacent segment disease. Continued uncertainty remains about degeneration of the prosthesis. Long-term surveillance of patients who undergo TDR may allow its routine use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:991-1001.

Adverse Events Following Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

Cervical arthroplasty is an increasingly popular treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. An understanding of the potential adverse events (AEs) is important to help both clinicians and patients. We sought to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the AEs reported in all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical disc arthroplasty in an attempt to characterize the quality of reporting.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and Web of Science for RCTs of cervical disc arthroplasty reporting AEs. We reported the most frequently mentioned AEs, including dysphagia/dysphonia, vascular compromise, dural injury, and infections. We recorded the presence of industry funding and scored the quality of collection methods and reporting of AEs.

RESULTS

Of the 3734 identified articles, 29 articles met full inclusion criteria. The quality of AE reporting varied significantly between studies, and a combined meta-analysis was not feasible. The 29 articles covered separate 19 RCTs. Eight studies were US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) trials. Rates were recorded for the following AEs: dysphagia/dysphonia (range = 1.3% to 27.2%), vascular compromise (range = 1.1% to 2.4%), cervical wound infection (range = 1.2% to 22.5%), and cerebrospinal fluid leak (range = 0.8% to 7.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consistency in reporting of AEs among RCTs of cervical arthroplasty. FDA IDE trials scored better in AE event reporting compared to other studies. Standardized definitions for AEs and standardized data collection methodology are needed to improve future studies.

Discover cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in symptomatic cervical disc diseases: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) is a common degenerative disease, and Discover artificial cervical disc, a new-generation nonconstrained artificial disk, has been developed and performed gradually to treat it. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between Discover cervical disc arthroplasty (DCDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for SCDD.

METHODS

An exhaustive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that compared DCDA with ACDF for patients suffering SCDD. A random-effect model was used. Results were reported as standardized mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Of 33 articles identified, six studies were included. Compared with ACDF, DCDA demonstrated shorter operation time (P < 0.0001), and better range of motion (ROM) at the operative level (P < 0.00001). But no significant differences were observed in blood loss, neck disability index (NDI) scores, neck and arm pain scores, Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) scores, secondary surgery procedures and adverse events (P > 0.05). Subgroup analyses did not demonstrated significant differences.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, DCDA presented shorter operation time, and better ROM at the operative level. However, no significant differences were observed in blood loss, NDI scores, neck and arm pain scores, JOA scores, secondary surgery procedures and adverse events between the two groups. Additionally, more studies of high quality with mid- to long-term follow-up are required in future.

Durability of cervical disc arthroplasties and its influence factors: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The durability of cervical disc arthroplasties (CDA) may vary significantly because of different designs and implanting techniques of the devices. Nevertheless, the comparative durability remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the durability of CDAs in at least 2-year follow-up. We analyzed the classifications and causes of secondary surgical procedures, as well as the structural designs of the devices that might influence the durability.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from the inception of each database to September 2015 using the following Keywords: "cervical disc replacement" OR "cervical disc arthroplasty" AND "randomized controlled trial (RCT)." Publication language was restricted to English. The primary outcome was the rate of secondary surgical procedures following CDA or anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). Pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were carried out using Review Manager v5.3.5 and WinBUGS version 1.4.3, respectively. Quality of evidence was appraised by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs that met the eligibility criteria were included. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to 7 years. A total of 103 secondary surgical procedures were performed. The most frequent classification of secondary surgical procedures was reoperation (48/103) and removal (47/103). Revision (3/103) and supplementary fixation (2/103) were rare. Adjacent-level diseases were the most common cause of reoperations. The rates of secondary surgical procedures were significantly lower in Mobi-C, Prestige, Prodisc-C, Secure-C group than in ACDF group. No significant difference was detected between Bryan, PCM, Kineflex-C, Discover, and ACDF. Mobi-C, Secure-C, and Prodisc-C ranked the best, the second best, the third best, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that Mobi-C, Secure-C, and Prodisc-C were more durable than ACDF. Precise selection of device size and proper surgical techniques are implicated to be crucial to enhance the perdurability. Device design should concentrate on the imitation of biomechanics of normal cervical disc, and semi-constrained structural device is a better design to make CDA more durable.

The Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial (NORCAT): 2-year clinical outcome after single-level cervical arthroplasty versus fusion-a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled multicenter study

PURPOSE

Standard surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease has been discectomy and fusion, but the use of arthroplasty, designed to preserve motion, has increased, and most studies report clinical outcome in its favor. Few of these trials, however, blinded the patients. We, therefore, conducted the Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial, and present 2-year clinical outcome after arthroplasty or fusion.

METHODS

This multicenter trial included 136 patients with single-level cervical disc disease. The patients were randomized to arthroplasty or fusion, and blinded to the treatment modality. The surgical team was blinded to randomization until nerve root decompression was completed. Primary outcome was the self-rated Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes were the numeric rating scale for pain and quality of life questionnaires Short Form-36 and EuroQol-5Dimension-3 Level.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in the primary and all secondary outcomes from baseline to 2-year follow-up for both arthroplasty and fusion (P < 0.001), and no observed significant between-group differences at any follow-up times. However, linear mixed model analyses, correcting for baseline values, dropouts and missing data, revealed a difference in Neck Disability Index (P = 0.049), and arm pain (P = 0.027) in favor of fusion at 2 years. The duration of surgery was longer (P < 0.001), and the frequency of reoperations higher (P = 0.029) with arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed excellent clinical results and no significant difference between treatments at any scheduled follow-up. However, the rate of index level reoperations was higher and the duration of surgery longer with arthroplasty.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT 00735176.19.

Anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical approaches are usually required in cases of severe cervical disc disease. The traditional method of anterior cervical disc fusion (ACDF) has been associated with reduced local mobility and increased occurrence of adjacent segment disease. The newer method of anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) relies upon artificial discs of various products. Current literature is inconsistent in the comparative performance of these methods with regards to clinical, radiological and patient outcomes.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including OVID Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were comprehensively searched to retrieve studies comparing the treatment outcomes of ACDF and ACDA. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were extracted from eligible articles.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty five articles were identified through the database searches, and after screening 28 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 4,070 patients were included (2156 ACDA, 1914 ACDF). There was no significant difference between the two groups in operation time, blood loss during operation, long-term all-complication rate and reoperation rate at the level of injury. The ACDA group had significantly better neurological outcomes, as well as a significantly lower rate of adjacent segment diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ACDF, the ACDA procedure is associated with improved reoperation rate and reduction in neurological deficits amongst previously demonstrated benefits. There is heterogeneity in ACDA devices; future studies are required to investigate the impact of this technique on treatment outcomes.

Degenerative cervical myelopathy

Cervical myelopathy is the most common cause of acquired spinal cord compromise. The concept of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), defined as symptomatic myelopathy associated with degenerative arthropathic changes in the spine axis, is being introduced. Given its progressive nature, treatment options have to be chosen in a timely manner. Surgical options include anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), arthroplasty (in highly select cases), posterior laminectomy with/without fusion, and laminoplasty. Indications for each should be carefully considered in individual patients. Riluzole, a sodium-glutamate antagonist, is a promising option to optimize neurologic outcomes post-surgery and is being examined in the CSM-Protect Randomized Controlled Trial. Preoperative risk assessment is mandatory for prognostication. Sagittal alignment is known to play an important role to optimize surgical outcome. Guidelines for optimal management of DCM are in process. In principle, all but the mildest cases of DCM should be offered surgery for optimal outcome.

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in symptomatic cervical degenerative disc diseases (CDDDs): an updated meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety in cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating cervical degenerative disc diseases (CDDDs).

METHODS

The authors searched RCTs in the electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Embase, Springer Link, Web of Knowledge, OVID and Google Scholar) from their establishment to march 2016 without language restrictions. We also manually searched the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Researches on CDA versus ACDF in CDDDs were selected in this meta-analysis. The quality of all studies was assessed and effective data was pooled for this meta-analysis. Outcome measurements were surgical parameters (operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay), clinical indexes [neck disability index (NDI), neurological success, range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Score (VAS)], complications [the number of adverse events, adjacent segment disease (ASD), and reoperation]. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were also performed, respectively. The meta-analysis was performed with software revman 5.3.

RESULTS

37 articles (20 RCTs) with a total 4004 patients (2212 in the CDA and 1792 in the ACDF) met inclusion criteria. Eight types of disc prostheses were used in the included studies. Patients were followed up for at least 2 years in all the studies. No statistically significant differences were found between CDA and ACDF for blood loss [SMD -0.02; 95 % CI (-0.20, 0.17)], length of hospital stay [MD -0.06; 95 % CI (-0.19, 0.06)]. Statistical differences were found between operative time [MD 14.22; 95 % CI (6.73, 21.71)], NDI [SMD -0.27; 95 % CI (-0.43, -0.10)], neurological success [RR 1.13; 95 % CI (1.08, 1.18)], ROM [MD 6.72; 95 % CI (5.72, 7.71)], VAS of neck [SMD -0.40; 95 % CI (-0.75, -0.04)], VAS of arm [SMD -0.55; 95 % CI (-1.04, -0.06)], the rate of adverse events [RR 0.72 95 % CI (0.53, 0.96)], the rate of ASD [RR 0.62; 95 % CI (0.43, 0.88)], and reoperation [RR 0.50; 95 % CI (0.39, 0.63)]. Subgroup analysis stratified by different types of disc prostheses was also performed.

CONCLUSIONS

CDA is associated with higher clinical indexes and fewer complications than ACDF, indicating that it is a safe and effective treatment for CDDDs. However, the operative time of CDA is longer than ACDF. Because of some limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additional studies are needed. Large, definitive RCTs are needed.

Does design matter? Cervical disc replacements under review

The present article reviews the design rationale of currently available cervical disc replacements. Recent prospective randomized control trials comparing cervical disc replacement and anterior fusion have demonstrated safety as well as equal or superior clinical results. Increasingly, more devices are becoming available on the market. Understanding design rationale will provide context for the surgeon to optimize decision making for the most appropriate prosthesis. Cervical arthroplasty is a technique that is undergoing rapid design refinement and development. Further improvements in device design will enable patient-specific device selection. Understanding the design rationale and complication profile of each device will improve clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Reoperation After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a standard surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, but reoperations sometimes are performed to treat complications of fusion such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent-segment degeneration. A cervical disc arthroplasty is designed to preserve motion and avoid the shortcomings of fusion. Available evidence suggests that a cervical disc arthroplasty can provide pain relief and functional improvements similar or superior to an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. However, there is controversy regarding whether a cervical disc arthroplasty can reduce the frequency of reoperations.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion regarding (1) the overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels; (2) the frequency of reoperation at the index level; and (3) the frequency of reoperation at the adjacent levels.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and reporting the frequency of reoperation. We also manually searched the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Twelve RCTs with a total of 3234 randomized patients were included. Eight types of disc prostheses were used in the included studies. In the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group, autograft was used in one study and allograft in 11 studies. Nine of 12 studies were industry sponsored. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CI were calculated for the frequency of reoperation using random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A funnel plot suggested the possible presence of publication bias in the available pool of studies; that is, the shape of the plot suggests that smaller negative or no-difference studies may have been performed but have not been published, and so were not identified and included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels was lower in the cervical disc arthroplasty group (6%; 108/1762) than in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group (12%; 171/1472) (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80; p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed according to secondary surgical level. Compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc arthroplasty was associated with fewer reoperations at the index level (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.001) and adjacent levels (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical disc arthroplasty is associated with fewer reoperations than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, indicating that it is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, because of some limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additional studies are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in the role of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Multiple prospective randomized studies with minimum 2 year follow-up have shown TDR to be at least as safe and effective as ACDF in treating symptomatic degenerative disc disease at a single level. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of cervical TDR using the Mobi-C(®) with ACDF at 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted as a Food and Drug Administration regulated Investigational Device Exemption trial across 23 centers with 245 patients randomized (2:1) to receive TDR with Mobi-C(®) Cervical Disc Prosthesis or ACDF with anterior plate and allograft. Outcome assessments included a composite overall success score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12) health survey, patient satisfaction, major complications, subsequent surgery, segmental range of motion, and adjacent segment degeneration.

RESULTS

The 60-month follow-up rate was 85.5% for the TDR group and 78.9% for the ACDF group. The composite overall success was 61.9% with TDR vs. 52.2% with ACDF, demonstrating statistical non-inferiority. Improvements in NDI, VAS neck and arm pain, and SF-12 scores were similar between groups and were maintained from earlier follow-up through 60 months. There was no significant difference between TDR and ACDF in adverse events or major complications. Range of motion was maintained with TDR through 60 months. Device-related subsequent surgeries (TDR: 3.0%, ACDF: 11.1%, p<0.02) and adjacent segment degeneration at the superior level (TDR: 37.1%, ACDF: 54.7%, p<0.03) were significantly lower for TDR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TDR with the Mobi-C as a viable alternative to ACDF with the potential advantage of lower rates of reoperation and adjacent segment degeneration, in the treatment of one-level symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This prospective, randomized study with 5-year follow-up adds to the existing literature indicating that cervical TDR is a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

This is a Level I study.

Cervical total disc replacement is superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite being considered the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic cervical disc disease, anterior cervical decompression and fusion invariably accelerates adjacent segment degeneration. Cervical total disc replacement is a motion-preserving procedure developed as a substitute to fusion. Whether cervical total disc replacement is superior to fusion remains unclear.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and the Cochrane Library in accordance with the inclusion criteria to identify possible studies. The retrieved results were last updated on December 12, 2014. We classified the studies as short-term and midterm follow-up.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled trials involving 4516 cases were identified. Compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, cervical total disc replacement had better functional outcomes (neck disability index [NDI], NDI success, neurological success, neck pain scores reported on a numerical rating scale [NRS], visual analog scales scores and overall success), greater segmental motion at the index level, fewer adverse events and fewer secondary surgical procedures at the index and adjacent levels in short-term follow-up (P < 0.05). With midterm follow-up, the cervical total disc replacement group indicated superiority in the NDI, neurological success, pain assessment (NRS), and secondary surgical procedures at the index level (P < 0.05). The Short Form 36 (SF-36) and segmental motion at the adjacent level in the short-term follow-up showed no significant difference between the two procedures, as did the secondary surgical procedure rates at the adjacent level with midterm follow-up (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical total disc replacement presented favorable functional outcomes, fewer adverse events, and fewer secondary surgical procedures. The efficacy and safety of cervical total disc replacement are superior to those of fusion. Longer-term, multicenter studies are required for a better evaluation of the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures.