Maharaj Monish M, Mobbs Ralph J, Hogan Jarred, Zhao Dong Fang, Rao Prashanth J, Phan Kevin
NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia;; NeuroSpine Clinic, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Randwick, Sydney, Australia;; University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia;
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):72-85. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.09.01.
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.
背景:严重颈椎间盘疾病通常需要手术治疗。传统的颈椎前路椎间盘融合术(ACDF)与局部活动度降低及相邻节段疾病发生率增加有关。较新的颈椎前路椎间盘置换术(ACDA)依赖于各种产品的人工椎间盘。目前的文献在这些方法在临床、影像学和患者预后方面的比较表现上并不一致。 方法:全面检索电子数据库,包括OVID Medline、PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane对照试验中央登记册和Cochrane系统评价数据库,以检索比较ACDF和ACDA治疗效果的研究。从符合条件的文章中提取基线特征和结局数据。 结果:通过数据库检索确定了255篇文章,筛选后28项研究纳入系统评价和荟萃分析。共纳入4070例患者(2156例行ACDA,1914例行ACDF)。两组在手术时间、术中出血量、长期全并发症发生率和损伤节段再手术率方面无显著差异。ACDA组的神经功能结局明显更好,相邻节段疾病发生率也明显更低。 结论:与ACDF相比,ACDA手术除了具有先前已证实的益处外,还与再手术率的改善和神经功能缺损的减少有关。ACDA装置存在异质性;未来需要研究来调查该技术对治疗效果影响。
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2025-4-15
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2023-10-15
Surg Neurol Int. 2021-2-3