Is Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Superior to Fusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease? A Meta-Analysis
- 1.1k Downloads
As the current standard treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease, anterior cervical decompression and fusion may result in progressive degeneration or disease of the adjacent segments. Cervical disc arthroplasty was theoretically designed to be an ideal substitute for fusion by preserving motion at the operative level and delaying adjacent level degeneration. However, it remains unclear whether arthroplasty achieves that aim.
We investigated whether cervical disc arthroplasty was associated with (1) better function (neck disability index, pain assessment, SF-36 mental and physical health surveys, neurologic status) than fusion, (2) a lower incidence of reoperation and major complications, and (3) a lower risk of subsequent adjacent segment degeneration.
We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE®, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and identified 503 papers. Of these, we identified 13 reports from 10 randomized controlled trials involving 2227 patients. We performed a meta-analysis of functional scores, rates of reoperation, and major complications. The strength of evidence was evaluated by using GRADE profiler software. Of the 10 trials, six trials including five prospective multicenter FDA-regulated studies were sponsored by industry. The mean followups of the 10 trials ranged from 1 to 5 years.
Compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion, cervical disc arthroplasty had better mean neck disability indexes (95% CI, −0.25 to −0.02), neurologic status (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.08), with a reduced incidence of reoperation related to the index surgery (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.79), and major surgical complications (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27–0.75) at a mean of 1 to 3 years. However, the operation rate at adjacent levels after two procedures was similar (95% CI, 0.31–1.27). The three studies with longer mean followups of 4 to 5 years also showed similar superiority of all four parameters of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion.
For treating symptomatic cervical disc disease, cervical disc arthroplasty appears to provide better function, a lower incidence of reoperation related to index surgery at 1 to 5 years, and lower major complication rates compared with fusion. However, cervical disc arthroplasty did not reduce the reoperation rate attributable to adjacent segment degeneration than fusion. Further, it is unclear whether these differences in subsequent surgery including arthroplasty revisions will persist beyond 5 years.
We thank J. Kenneth Burkus MD at Spine Service, Wilderness Spine Services, the Hughston Clinic, for help in providing detailed clinical data of their trials.
- 8.Coric D, Nunley PD, Guyer RD, Musante D, Carmody CN, Gordon CR, Lauryssen C, Ohnmeiss DD, Boltes MO. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15:348–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Delamarter R, Murrey DB, Janssen ME, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden BV. Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption Trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. SAS Journal. 2010;4:122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:2673–2678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Moatz B, Tortolani PJ. Cervical disc arthroplasty: pros and cons. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(suppl 3):216–224.Google Scholar
- 28.Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J. 2009;9:275–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ 3rd, Gordon CJ, Cavanaugh DA, Birdsong EM, Stocks M, Danielson G. Factors affecting the incidence of symptomatic adjacent-level disease in cervical spine after total disc arthroplasty: 2- to 4-year follow-up of 3 prospective randomized trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Riina J, Patel A, Dietz JW, Hoskins JS, Trammell TR, Schwartz DD. Comparison of single-level cervical fusion and metal-on-metal cervical disc replacement device. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008;37:E71–77.Google Scholar
- 40.Singh K, Phillips FM, Park DK, Pelton MA, An HS, Goldberg EJ. Factors affecting reoperations after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion within and outside of a Federal Drug Administration investigational device exemption cervical disc replacement trial. Spine J. 2012;12:372–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers’ compensation population. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:741–747; discussion 747.Google Scholar
- 44.World Health Organization. Toxic effects. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. No. 48. WHO offset publication. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1979:14–22.Google Scholar