Anterior cervical controllable Antedisplacement and Fusion (ACAF) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF) for ossification of the cervical posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) in Chinese population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to systematically review and compare the efficacy and safety of anterior cervical controllable antedisplacement and fusion (ACAF) versus anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) in treating ossification of the cervical posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), focusing on surgery-related indicators and postoperative outcomes. This review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting standards. The methodological quality of this systematic review was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. A detailed search strategy was implemented to retrieve literature from electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, followed by quality assessment and data extraction for eligible studies. A total of 5 studies involving 366 participants were included. ACAF was associated with significantly fewer complications (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.12, 0.51], p = 0.000), including a lower incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage (OR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.08, 0.52], p = 0.000). ACAF also showed better outcomes in postoperative neck disability index (NDI) scores (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.15], p = 0.020), C2-C7 angle (SMD = 1.29, 95% CI [0.56, 2.03], p = 0.000), spinal canal area (SCA) (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI [0.56, 1.29], p = 0.000), and diameter of the spinal cord (DSC) (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI [0.11, 0.66], p = 0.010). Additionally, ACAF improved The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores (SMD = 0.29, 95% CI [0.01, 0.57], p = 0.040) but required longer operation time (SMD = 1.08, 95% CI [0.01, 2.15], p = 0.049). No significant differences were found in blood loss (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.79], p = 0.431), hospital stay (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.76], p = 0.547), and improvement rate (IR) (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.86], p = 0.118). The current meta-analysis indicated that ACAF surgery can effectively reduce the incidence of complications, significantly increase the spinal canal area and improve the spatial conditions of the spinal cord compared to those associated with ACCF surgery. This is more advantageous for the postoperative neurological recovery of patients. Nonetheless, it is crucial to approach these findings with a degree of caution.