Zhao Guo-Sheng, Zhang Qiao, Quan Zheng-Xue
Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, P.R. China.
Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, P.R. China.
Biomed Rep. 2017 Feb;6(2):159-166. doi: 10.3892/br.2016.823. Epub 2016 Dec 2.
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are the most commonly used procedures in cervical spondylosis. However, only a few published studies exist in the literature comparing these two operation types, particularly its mid-term efficacy and safety. Furthermore, in those studies, even large sample trials, when compared, have elicited controversial results, making it inconvenient for clinicians to refer to them. The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages and shortcomings of the two procedures. Articles indexed in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China Biological Medicine and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases, as of March 2016, that met our criteria were searched. A total of 18 trials involving 3,040 patients were included in our final analysis. The most important results drawn from the present analysis were as follows: Insignificant differences were identified in the blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=6.23; 95% confidence intervals (CI), -0.85 to 13.32; P=0.08], surgical time [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.40; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.82; P=0.06], the time of hospital stay (SMD=0.05; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.37; P=0.77) and the total complications rate [odds ratio (OR)=0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.131; P=0.28] on a comparison of the two operation methods. By contrast, comparing CDA with ACDF, the CDA had higher Short Form survey (SF-36) scores (WMD=1.65; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.69; P=0.002), a larger range of motion in the operation level (SMD=6.53; 95% CI, 3.89 to 9.17; P<0.0001), a higher rate of neurological improvement following the operation (OR=1.80; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.52; P=0.0006), a lower Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of neck pain (WMD= 0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.05; P=0.006) and arm pain (WMD= 0.12; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.01; P=0.04). In addition, in the mid-term following the surgery, CDA had a lower Neck Disability Index (NDI; SMD=0.18; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.07; P=0.001) and a lower reoperation rate of adjacent levels (OR=0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P=0.007) compared with ACDF. Taken together, these results suggested that CDA and ACDF are efficient and safe methods for dealing with cervical spondylosis. However, with respect to certain specific indicators, such as the reoperation rate of adjacent levels following surgery, the former has several advantages.
颈椎前路椎间盘切除术及融合术(ACDF)和颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)是颈椎病最常用的手术方式。然而,文献中仅有少数已发表的研究对这两种手术类型进行比较,尤其是中期疗效和安全性。此外,在这些研究中,即使是大型样本试验,比较结果也存在争议,这使得临床医生在参考时感到不便。本研究的目的是阐明这两种手术的优缺点。检索截至2016年3月在PubMed、科学网、Cochrane图书馆、EMBASE、中国生物医学数据库和中国知网(CNKI)数据库中符合我们标准的文章。最终分析纳入了18项涉及3040例患者的试验。本分析得出的最重要结果如下:两种手术方法在失血量[加权均数差(WMD)=6.23;95%置信区间(CI),-0.85至13.32;P=0.08]、手术时间[标准化均数差(SMD)=0.40;95%CI,-0.01至0.82;P=0.06]、住院时间(SMD=0.05;95%CI,-0.28至0.37;P=0.77)和总并发症发生率[比值比(OR)=0.86;95%CI,0.66至1.131;P=0.28]方面无显著差异。相比之下,将CDA与ACDF比较,CDA的简明健康状况调查(SF-36)评分更高(WMD=1.65;95%CI,0.61至2.69;P=0.002),手术节段活动范围更大(SMD=6.53;95%CI,3.89至9.17;P<0.0001),术后神经功能改善率更高(OR=1.80;95%CI,1.29至2.52;P=0.0006),颈部疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)更低(WMD=0.16;95%CI,-0.28至0.05;P=0.006),手臂疼痛VAS评分更低(WMD=0.12;95%CI,-0.24至-0.01;P=0.04)。此外,在术后中期,与ACDF相比,CDA的颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)更低(SMD=0.18;95%CI,-0.28至-0.07;P=0.001),相邻节段再次手术率更低(OR=0.54;95%CI,0.35至0.85;P=0.007)。综上所述,这些结果表明CDA和ACDF是治疗颈椎病的有效且安全的方法。然而,就某些特定指标而言,如术后相邻节段再次手术率,前者具有若干优势。