Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease.

Methods

We identified eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed (April 2011), EMBASE (April 2011) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (April 2011). Data were collected and extracted by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.0.

Results

Six RCTs involving 1,745 patients were included. The pooled analysis showed a higher prevalence of neurological and overall success [(P = 0.004, RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02–1.10), (P = 0.0005, RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.06–1.22)], and a lower incidence of dysphagia and reoperation related to adjacent-segment degeneration [(P = 0.04, RR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.09–0.97), (P = 0.03, RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.23–0.91)] with CDA compared to ACDF. However, there was no statistical difference in neck disability index (P = 0.92, SMD = 0.01, 95% CI = −0.25 to 0.27), neck and arm pain scores[(P = 0.33, SMD = −0.12, 95% CI = −0.37 to 0.13), (P = 0.54, SMD = 0.17, 95% CI = −0.36 to 0.70)], incidence of complications related to the implant or surgical procedure and reoperation related to primary surgery [(P = 0.32, RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.45–1.30), (P = 0.09, RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.20–1.12)].

Conclusion

Compared with ACDF, CDA carry a lower incidence of dysphagia complications and reoperation related to adjacent-segment degeneration, and a higher prevalence of neurological and overall success at 2 years postoperatively. As the poor quality of the included studies, it is still uncertain whether CDR is more effective and safer than ACDF treating single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Future large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to provide clear evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Cloward RB (2007) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. 1958. J Neurosurg Spine 6(5):496–511. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.5.496

  2. Bohlman HH, Emery SE, Goodfellow DB, Jones PK (1993) Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy. Long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75(9):1298–1307

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Matz PG, Holly LT, Groff MW, Vresilovic EJ, Anderson PA, Heary RF, Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Resnick DK (2009) Indications for anterior cervical decompression for the treatment of cervical degenerative radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 11(2):174–182. doi:10.3171/2009.3.SPINE08720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 Suppl):190S–194S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007

  5. Peng CW, Quirno M, Bendo JA, Spivak JM, Goldstein JA (2009) Effect of intervertebral disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes after Prodisc-C cervical disc replacement. Spine J 9(7):551–555. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.008

    Google Scholar 

  6. Phillips FM, Garfin SR (2005) Cervical disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(17 Suppl):S27–S33. doi:00007632-200509011-00007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2007) Update on cervical artificial disk replacement. Instr Course Lect 56:237–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(12):1305–1312. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817329a100007632-200805200-00005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (2009) 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) 34(2):101–107. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Cunningham BW, Devine JG, Phillips FM, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Ahrens JE (2010) Lower incidence of dysphagia with cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF in a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(1):1–8. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31819e2ab8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6(3):198–209. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.3.198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) 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 9(4):275–286. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006

  13. Nabhan A, Steudel WI, Pape D, Ishak B (2007) Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 17(3):229–236

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM, Traynelis VC (2005) Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 3(6):417–423. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.6.0417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, Anderson PA (2008) Motion analysis of bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(6):393–399. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318150d12100024720-200808000-00003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(18):1929–1941. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f00007632-200908150-00016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535bmj.b2535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel WI, Pape D (2007) The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(18):1935–1941. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31813162d800007632-200708150-00002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers’ compensation population. Neurosurgery 63(4):741–747 (discussion 747). doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000325495.79104.DB00006123-200810000-00024

    Google Scholar 

  20. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA (2001) The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 54(7):651–654. doi:S0895435600003607

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20(2):177–184. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworhty T, Sutherland L (2011) Artificial Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (ACDA): a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182163814

  23. Fekete TF, Porchet F (2010) Overview of disc arthroplasty-past, present and future. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152(3):393–404. doi:10.1007/s00701-009-0529-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Duggal N, Pickett GE, Mitsis DK, Keller JL (2004) Early clinical and biomechanical results following cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 17(3):E9. doi:170309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J (2002) Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. Neurosurgery 51(3):840–845 discussion 845-847

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N (2005) Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(17):1949–1954. doi:00007632-200509010-00007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fraser JF, Hartl R (2007) Anterior approaches to fusion of the cervical spine: a metaanalysis of fusion rates. J Neurosurg Spine 6(4):298–303. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.4.2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Barnes B, Haid RW, Rodts GE, Subach BR, Kaiser M (2002) Early results using the Atlantis anterior cervical plate system. Neurosurg Focus 12(1):E13. doi:120113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Lawrence JP, Kershaw T, Nanieva R (2005) Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 2(4):403–410. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.2.4.0403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Baron EM, Young WF (2007) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a brief review of its pathophysiology, clinical course, and diagnosis. Neurosurgery 60(1 Supp1 1):S35–S41. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000215383.64386.8200006123-200701001-00007

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(4):519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(6):367–371. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181bb8568

  33. Rabin D, Pickett GE, Bisnaire L, Duggal N (2007) The kinematics of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus artificial cervical disc: a pilot study. Neurosurgery 61(3 Suppl):100–104 (discussion 104–105). doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000289722.12459.9e00006123-200709001-00018

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J (2007) Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7(1):33–39. doi:10.3171/SPI-07/07/033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the quality improvement of our paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Spine Surgery, The Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Zhongshan Road 321, Nanjing, 210008, People’s Republic of China

    Hua Jiang, Zezhang Zhu, Yong Qiu, Bangping Qian, Xusheng Qiu & Mingliang Ji

Authors
  1. Hua Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zezhang Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bangping Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xusheng Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mingliang Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Qiu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jiang, H., Zhu, Z., Qiu, Y. et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 141–151 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1401-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1401-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation