Rao Min-Jie, Nie Shao-Ping, Xiao Bao-Wei, Zhang Gong-Heng, Gan Xin-Rong, Cao Sheng-Sheng
Department of Orthopedics, The People's Hospital of Yichun City, No. 88 Zhongshan West Road, Yichun, 336000, Jiangxi, People's Republic of China.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Jan;135(1):19-28. doi: 10.1007/s00402-014-2122-5. Epub 2014 Dec 5.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the conventional surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease. Recently, cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has been developed to address some of the shortcomings associated with ACDF by preserving function of the motion segment. Controversy still surrounds regarding whether CDA is better. METHODS: We systematically searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Clinical, Ovid, BIOSIS and Cochrane registry of controlled clinical trials) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to April 2014 in which CDA was compared with ACDF for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease. Effective data were extracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials. Then, we performed the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen relevant RCTs with a total of 4061 patients were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that CDA was superior to ACDF regarding better neurological success (P < 0.00001), greater motion preservation at the operated level (P < 0.00001), fewer secondary surgical procedures (P < 0.00001), and fewer rates of adverse events (P < 0.00001) but inferior to ACDF regarding operative times (P < 0.00001). No significant difference was identified between the two groups regarding blood loss (P = 0.87), lengths of hospital stay (P = 0.76), neck pain scores (P = 0.11) and arm pain scores (P = 0.78) reported on a visual analog scale. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis revealed that CDA demonstrated superiorities in better neurological success, greater motion preservation at the operated level, lower rate of adverse events and fewer secondary surgical procedures compared with ACDF. However, the benefits of blood loss, lengths of hospital stay, neck and arm pain functional recovery are still unable to be proved.
目的:本研究旨在比较颈椎间盘置换术与颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术治疗有症状颈椎间盘疾病的有效性和安全性。颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)是治疗有症状颈椎间盘疾病的传统手术方法。近年来,颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)已被开发出来,通过保留运动节段的功能来解决与ACDF相关的一些缺点。关于CDA是否更好仍存在争议。 方法:我们系统检索了六个电子数据库(Medline、Embase、Clinical、Ovid、BIOSIS和Cochrane对照临床试验注册库),以确定截至2014年4月发表的将CDA与ACDF用于治疗有症状颈椎间盘疾病的随机对照试验(RCT)。在评估试验的方法学质量后提取有效数据。然后,我们进行了荟萃分析。 结果:纳入了18项相关RCT,共4061例患者。荟萃分析结果表明,在神经功能改善方面(P<0.00001)、手术节段运动保留方面(P<0.00001)、二次手术较少方面(P<0.00001)以及不良事件发生率较低方面(P<0.00001),CDA优于ACDF,但在手术时间方面(P<0.00001)不如ACDF。两组在视觉模拟量表上报告的失血量(P = 0.87)、住院时间(P = 0.76)、颈部疼痛评分(P = 0.11)和手臂疼痛评分(P = 0.78)方面未发现显著差异。 结论:荟萃分析显示,与ACDF相比,CDA在神经功能改善更好、手术节段运动保留更多、不良事件发生率更低和二次手术更少方面表现出优势。然而,失血量、住院时间、颈部和手臂疼痛功能恢复方面的益处仍无法得到证实。
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2016-12-1
Int J Spine Surg. 2020-8