Barot Karma, Ruiz-Cardozo Miguel A, Singh Som, Trevino Gabriel, Kann Michael R, Brehm Samuel, Bui Tim, Joseph Karan, Patel Rujvee, Hardi Angela, Yahanda Alexander T, Jauregui Julio J, Cadieux Magalie, Pennicooke Brenton, Molina Camilo A
Department of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Becker Medical Library, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Global Spine J. 2025 Mar;15(2):1390-1404. doi: 10.1177/21925682241270100. Epub 2024 Aug 1.
Systematic Review.
To evaluate which cervical deformity correction technique between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) produces better clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes.
We conducted a meta-analysis comparing studies involving ACDF and ACCF. Adult patients with either original or previously treated cervical spine deformities were included. Two independent reviewers categorized extracted data into clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes, including complications. Clinical assessments included patient-reported outcomes; radiographic evaluations examined C2-C7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, T1-CL, C2-7 SVA, and graft stability. Surgical measures included surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications.
26 studies (25727 patients) met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Of these, 14 studies (19077 patients) with low risk of bias were included in meta-analysis. ACDF and ACCF similarly improve clinical outcomes in terms of JOA and NDI, but ACDF is significantly better at achieving lower VAS neck scores. ACDF is also more advantageous for improving cervical lordosis and minimizing the incidence of graft complications. While there is no significant difference between approaches for most surgical complications, ACDF is favorable for reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay.
While both techniques benefit cervical deformity patients, when both techniques are feasible, ACDF may be superior with respect to VAS neck scores, cervical lordosis, graft complications and certain perioperative outcomes. Further studies are recommended to address outcome variability and refine surgical approach selection.
系统评价。
评估颈椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和颈椎椎体次全切除融合术(ACCF)这两种颈椎畸形矫正技术在临床、影像学及手术效果方面哪种更佳。
我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较涉及ACDF和ACCF的研究。纳入患有原发性或既往治疗过的颈椎畸形的成年患者。两名独立的评审员将提取的数据分类为临床、影像学和手术结果,包括并发症。临床评估包括患者报告的结果;影像学评估检查C2-C7 Cobb角、T1斜率、T1-CL、C2-7 SVA和植骨稳定性。手术指标包括手术时长、失血量、住院时间和并发症。
26项研究(25727例患者)符合纳入标准并被提取。其中,14项偏倚风险低的研究(19077例患者)被纳入荟萃分析。在日本骨科学会(JOA)评分和颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)方面,ACDF和ACCF在改善临床结果方面相似,但ACDF在降低视觉模拟评分法(VAS)颈部疼痛评分方面明显更优。ACDF在改善颈椎前凸和降低植骨并发症发生率方面也更具优势。虽然在大多数手术并发症方面两种手术方式无显著差异,但ACDF在缩短手术时间、减少术中失血量和缩短住院时间方面更具优势。
虽然两种技术都对颈椎畸形患者有益,但当两种技术都可行时,ACDF在VAS颈部疼痛评分、颈椎前凸、植骨并发症和某些围手术期结果方面可能更具优势。建议进一步研究以解决结果的变异性并优化手术方式的选择。