Peng Jiajie, Li Sihan, Lin Xiangying, Zhong Degui, Zheng Rong, Huang Minghan, Li Pengfei, Song Hongmei, Asakawa Tetsuya
Department of Orthopedics, Zhongshan Jishuitan Orthopedic Hospital, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China.
School of Basic Medical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Intractable Rare Dis Res. 2022 Aug;11(3):105-112. doi: 10.5582/irdr.2022.01080.
This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes between two alternative surgeries for patients with cervical spondylosis, namely anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) without plate (ACDFWP) vs. anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA). We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (firstly available-2019). A standard meta-analysis was performed with the included studies. A Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for the evaluation of the study quality of nonrandomized-controlled trials (nRCTs), while a Risk of Bias (RoB) battery was used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eight studies involving 640 patients were included. No significant difference was found in the indices of Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, Visual Analog Score (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, operative time, blood loss, Swallowing Quality of Life Score (SWAL-QL), and complications. Cervical alignment was significantly better in the ACDFWP than in ACDA (mean difference (MD) = -0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.11, -0.23], = 0.003, = 20%). Although the alternative ACDFWP was slightly superior in terms of the index of cervical alignment, the limited research on this subject present insufficient evidence. Further well-designed studies are warranted in the future.
这项荟萃分析比较了颈椎病患者两种替代手术的临床结果,即无钢板前路颈椎间盘切除融合术(ACDFWP)与前路颈椎间盘置换术(ACDA)。我们检索了包括PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、谷歌学术和科学网(最早至2019年)在内的数据库。对纳入的研究进行了标准的荟萃分析。使用干预性非随机研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估非随机对照试验(nRCTs)的研究质量,而使用偏倚风险(RoB)组套评估随机对照试验(RCTs)。纳入了八项涉及640例患者的研究。在颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)评分、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、日本矫形外科学会(JOA)评分、手术时间、失血量、吞咽生活质量评分(SWAL-QL)和并发症等指标上未发现显著差异。ACDFWP组的颈椎对线明显优于ACDA组(平均差值(MD)=-0.67,95%置信区间(CI)[-1.11,-0.23],P = 0.003,I² = 20%)。尽管替代方案ACDFWP在颈椎对线指标方面略占优势,但关于该主题的研究有限,证据不足。未来有必要进行进一步精心设计的研究。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018-5-1
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017-6