Back to Journals » Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management » Volume 15

Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies

Authors Latka D, Kozlowska K, Miekisiak G, Latka K, Chowaniec J, Olbrycht T, Latka M

Received 28 November 2018

Accepted for publication 23 February 2019

Published 28 March 2019 Volume 2019:15 Pages 531—539

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S196349

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Garry Walsh


Dariusz Latka,1,2 Klaudia Kozlowska,3 Grzegorz Miekisiak,1,2 Kajetan Latka,2 Jacek Chowaniec,2 Tomasz Olbrycht,2 Miroslaw Latka3

1Department of Anatomy, Institute of Medicine, University of Opole, Opole, Poland; 2Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital in Opole, Opole, Poland; 3Department of Bioengineering, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland

Objectives: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become an alternative treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. This technique preserves appropriate motion at both the index and adjacent disc levels and consequently may prevent adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). The authors performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of CDA to those of the gold standard, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Both surgical and clinical parameters were employed to verify the hypothesis that CDA can reduce the risk of ASD.
Methods: The meta-analysis comprised high-quality randomized controlled trials that compared CDA and ACDF treatments of cervical degenerative disc disease. Included papers reported data for at least one of the following outcomes: 1) surgical parameters, 2) questionnaire clinical indices (pre- and postoperative values), and 3) complication rates at 24 months; in addition, for ASD we analyzed 60 month or longer follow-ups. We used mean differences (MDs) or ORs to compare treatment effects between CDA and ACDF.
Results: Twenty studies with 3,656 patients (2,140 with CDA and 1,516 with ACDF) met the inclusion criteria. CDA surgery, with mean duration longer than that of ACDF, was associated with higher blood loss. Visual analog scale neck pain score was significantly smaller for CDA (mean difference =-2.30, 95% CI [-3.72; -0.87], P=0.002). The frequency of dysphagia/dysphonia (OR =0.69, 95% CI [0.49; 0.98], P=0.04) as well as the long-term ASD rate for CDA was significantly smaller (OR =0.33, 95% CI [0.21; 0.50], P<0.0001).
Conclusion: A significantly lower probability of ASD reoperations in the CDA cohort after a 60-month or longer follow-up was the most important finding of this study. Despite the moderate quality of this evidence, the pooled data corroborated for the very first time that CDA was efficacious in preventing ASD.

Keywords: cervical disc arthroplasty, CDA, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, ACDF, cervical degenerative disc disease, CDDD, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, RCT, cervical total disc replacement, CTDR
 

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]