de Vries Floor E, Gül Azra, Mesina-Estarrón Ignacio, Mekary Rania A, Vleggeert-Lankamp Carmen L A
Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.
Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center at Harvard, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Neurosurg Rev. 2025 Apr 25;48(1):386. doi: 10.1007/s10143-025-03542-w.
Significant variability exists in reported fusion rates in the cervical spine after anterior discectomy. Here we review fusion assessment methods, timing of fusion with various intervertebral devices, and examine correlations with clinical outcomes. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Emcare were searched on December 9 2024 for studies involving 1- or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy with quantitative fusion assessment via CT or X-ray. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to pool fusion rates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at different follow-up points, for different cage types and different cut-off values evaluating fusion. Sixty-four included studies evaluated 5633 patients. Pooled fusion rates increased over time: 55.6% (95% CI: 43.5%, 67.2%) of patients demonstrated fusion at three months, 74.4% (67.6%, 80.1%) at six months, 88.1% at 12 months (85.1%, 90.6%), and 91.8% (89.1%, 93.9%) at 24 months. Subgroup analysis revealed variation in fusion rates depending on cage type, with titanium cages yielding slightly higher rates at all follow-up times. Sensitivity analysis with fusion criteria showed that a cut-off value < 2 mm for interspinous distance yielded lower fusion rates than the cut-off < 2° for Cobb angle at 6 (70% vs. 77.3%), 12 (83.9% vs. 91.1%) and 24 months (89.5% vs. 91.7%). Results on the correlation between fusion and clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Fusion rates improved over time, approaching 56% at 3 months and 90% at 12 months. Notably, to alleviate heterogeneity across studies, there is a dire need to harmonize reporting guidelines in future research.
前路椎间盘切除术后颈椎融合率的报告存在显著差异。在此,我们回顾融合评估方法、使用各种椎间装置进行融合的时机,并研究其与临床结果的相关性。于2024年12月9日检索了PubMed、Medline、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆和Emcare,以查找涉及1或2节段颈椎前路椎间盘切除并通过CT或X线进行定量融合评估的研究。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,汇总不同随访时间、不同椎间融合器类型以及评估融合的不同截断值时的融合率及其95%置信区间(CI)。纳入的64项研究共评估了5633例患者。汇总的融合率随时间增加:3个月时55.6%(95%CI:43.5%,67.2%)的患者实现融合,6个月时为74.4%(67.6%,80.1%),12个月时为88.1%(85.1%,90.6%),24个月时为91.8%(89.1%,93.9%)。亚组分析显示,融合率因椎间融合器类型而异,钛制椎间融合器在所有随访时间的融合率略高。采用融合标准的敏感性分析表明,棘突间距离截断值<2mm时的融合率低于Cobb角截断值<2°时的融合率,在6个月时(70%对77.3%)、12个月时(83.9%对91.1%)和24个月时(89.5%对91.7%)均如此。融合与临床结果之间的相关性结果并不一致。融合率随时间提高,3个月时接近56%,12个月时接近90%。值得注意的是,为减轻各研究之间的异质性,未来研究迫切需要统一报告指南。