Ma Zhuo, Ma Xun, Yang Huilin, Guan Xiaoming, Li Xiang
Department of Orthopaedics, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences & Shanxi DaYi Hospital, No. 99 Long Cheng Street, Taiyuan, 030032, Shanxi Province, China.
Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou, 215000, Jiangsu Province, China.
Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr;26(4):998-1008. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4779-7. Epub 2016 Oct 22.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical arthroplasty for patients with cervical spondylosis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were used to search for relevant articles published prior to April 2016 to identify studies comparing ACDF and cervical arthroplasty involving patients with cervical spondylosis. Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) were used to measure the efficacy and safety of ACDF and cervical arthroplasty using the random effects model. RESULTS: The meta-analysis of 17 studies involved 3122 patients diagnosed with cervical spondylosis. Patients undergoing ACDF showed lower overall success rate (RR 0.84; 95 % CI 0.77-0.92; P < 0.001), higher VAS score (MD 0.36; 95 % CI 0.08-0.64; P = 0.011), and shorter mean surgical duration (MD -1.62; 95 % CI -2.80 to -0.44; P = 0.007) when compared with cervical arthroplasty. However, the association between ACDF therapy and the risk of mean blood loss (MD -0.16; 95 % CI -0.34 to 0.02; P = 0.082), mean hospitalization (MD 0.02; 95 % CI -0.31 to 0.36; P = 0.901), patient satisfaction (RR 0.96; 95 % CI 0.92-1.00; P = 0.066), neck disability index (MD 0.20; 95 % CI -0.05 to 0.44; P = 0.113), reoperation (RR 1.25; 95 % CI 0.64-2.41; P = 0.514), or complication (RR 1.17; 95 % CI 0.90-1.52; P = 0.242) was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing ACDF therapy tended to exhibit lower overall success rate, higher VAS score, and decreased mean surgical duration when compared with patients treated with cervical arthroplasty.
目的:本研究旨在比较颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)与颈椎人工关节置换术治疗颈椎病患者的疗效和安全性。 方法:使用PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆检索2016年4月之前发表的相关文章,以确定比较ACDF与颈椎人工关节置换术治疗颈椎病患者的研究。采用随机效应模型,用相对危险度(RR)和平均差(MD)来衡量ACDF和颈椎人工关节置换术的疗效和安全性。 结果:对17项研究的荟萃分析涉及3122例诊断为颈椎病的患者。与颈椎人工关节置换术相比,接受ACDF治疗的患者总体成功率较低(RR 0.84;95% CI 0.77 - 0.92;P < 0.001),视觉模拟评分(VAS)较高(MD 0.36;95% CI 0.08 - 0.64;P = 0.011),平均手术时间较短(MD -1.62;95% CI -2.80至 -0.44;P = 0.007)。然而,ACDF治疗与平均失血量(MD -0.16;95% CI -0.3至0.02;P = 0.082)、平均住院时间(MD 0.02;95% CI -0.31至0.36;P = 0.901)、患者满意度(RR 0.96;95% CI 0.92 - 1.00;P = 0.066)、颈部功能障碍指数(MD 0.20;95% CI -0.05至0.44;P = 0.113)、再次手术(RR 1.25;95% CI 0.64 - 2.41;P = 0.514)或并发症(RR 1.17;95% CI 0.90 - 1.52;P = 0.242)之间的关联无统计学意义。 结论:与接受颈椎人工关节置换术治疗的患者相比,接受ACDF治疗的患者总体成功率较低,VAS评分较高,平均手术时间缩短。
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015-7
BMC Public Health. 2025-3-14