Xiao Shan-Wen, Jiang Hua, Yang Li-Jing, Xiao Zeng-Ming
Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Shuangyong Road No. 6, Nanning, 530021, China.
Eur Spine J. 2015 Jan;24(1):31-9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3607-1. Epub 2014 Oct 18.
This is a meta-analysis to compare the results between anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy fusion (ACCF) for the patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM).
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies between ACDF with plate fixation and ACCF with plate fixation for the treatment of MCSM. An extensive search of literature was performed in PubMed, Mediline, Embase and the Cochrane library. The following outcome measures were extracted: JOA scores, fusion rate, cervical lordosis (C2-7), complications, blood loss and operation time. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.0.
Four cohorts (six studies) involving 258 patients were included in this study. The pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the postoperative JOA score [WMD = -0.14 (-1.37, 1.10), P = 0.83], fusion rate [OR = 0.84 (0.15, 4.86), P = 0.85] between two group. However, there was significant difference in the cervical lordosis [WMD = 3.38 (2.52, 4.23), P < 0.00001], surgical complication rate and instrument related complication rate (P = 0.01, 0.005 respectively), blood loss [WMD = -52.53 (-73.53, -31.52), P < 0.00001], and operation time [WMD = -14.10 (-20.27, -7.93), P < 0.00001].
As compared with ACCF with plate fixation, ACDF with plate fixation showed no significant differences in terms of postoperative JOA score, fusion rate, but better improved cervical lordosis, lower complication and smaller surgical trauma. As the limitations of small sample and short follow-up in this study, it still could not be identified whether ACDF with plate fixation is more effective and safer than ACCF with plate fixation.
本荟萃分析旨在比较多节段脊髓型颈椎病(MCSM)患者接受颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和颈椎前路椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)的结果。
对采用钢板固定的ACDF和采用钢板固定的ACCF治疗MCSM的队列研究进行系统评价和荟萃分析。在PubMed、Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆中广泛检索文献。提取以下结局指标:日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、融合率、颈椎前凸(C2-7)、并发症、失血量和手术时间。使用RevMan 5.0进行数据分析。
本研究纳入了4个队列(6项研究),共258例患者。汇总分析显示,两组术后JOA评分[加权均数差(WMD)=-0.14(-1.37,1.10),P=0.83]、融合率[比值比(OR)=0.84(0.15,4.86),P=0.85]无显著差异。然而,颈椎前凸[WMD=3.38(2.52,4.23),P<0.00001]、手术并发症发生率和器械相关并发症发生率(分别为P=0.01、0.005)、失血量[WMD=-52.53(-73.53,-31.52),P<0.00001]和手术时间[WMD=-14.10(-20.27,-7.93),P<0.00001]存在显著差异。
与采用钢板固定的ACCF相比,采用钢板固定的ACDF在术后JOA评分、融合率方面无显著差异,但能更好地改善颈椎前凸,并发症更少,手术创伤更小。由于本研究存在样本量小和随访时间短的局限性,仍无法确定采用钢板固定的ACDF是否比采用钢板固定的ACCF更有效、更安全。