Eur Spine J (2011) 20:177–184. DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7
Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been increasingly used as an alternative to fusion surgery in patients with pain or neurological symptoms in the cervical spine who do not respond to non-surgical treatment.
A systematic literature review has been conducted to evaluate whether CTDR is more efficacious and safer than fusion or non-surgical treatment. Published evidence up to date is summarised qualitatively according to the GRADE methodology.
After 2 years of follow-up, studies demonstrated statistically significant non-inferiority of CTDR versus fusion with respect to the composite outcome ‘overall success’. Single patient relevant endpoints such as pain, disability or quality of life improved in both groups with no superiority of CTDR. Both technologies showed similar complication rates. No evidence is available for the comparison between CTDR and non-surgical treatment. In the long run improvement of health outcomes seems to be similar in CTDR and fusion, however, the study quality is often severely limited. After both interventions, many patients still face problems. A difficulty per se is the correct diagnosis and indication for surgical interventions in the cervical spine. CTDR is no better than fusion in alleviating symptoms related to disc degeneration in the cervical spine. In the context of limited resources, a net cost comparison may be sensible.
So far, CTDR is not recommended for routine use. As many trials are ongoing, reevaluation at a later date will be required. Future research needs to address the relative effectiveness between CTDR and conservative treatment.
Neurosurg Focus 28 (6):E5, 2010. DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1032
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion had been considered a safe and effective procedure for radiculopathy and myelopathy in the cervical spine, but degeneration in adjacent spinal levels has been a problem in some patients after fusion. Since 2002, cervical disc arthroplasty has been established as an alternative to fusion. The objective of this study was to review data concerning the role of cervical arthroplasty in reducing adjacent-level degeneration.
Methods. A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and LILACS databases, focusing on a structured question involving the population of interest, types of intervention, types of control, and outcomes studied.
Results. No study has specifically compared the results of arthroplasty with the results of fusion with respect to the rate of postoperative development of adjacent-segment degenerative disease. One paper described a rate for adjacent-level surgery. The level of evidence of that paper was classified 2b, and although its authors found a statistically significant between-groups difference (arthroplasty vs fusion) using log-rank analysis, re-analysis according to number needed to treat (in the current paper) did not reveal statistical significance.
Conclusions. Adjacent-level degeneration has not been adequately studied in a review of the available randomized controlled trials on this topic, and there is no clinical evidence of reduction in adjacent-level degeneration with the use of cervical arthroplasty.
DOI:10.1007/s00701-009-0529-5. Acta Neurochirugica
Degenerative disc disease is one of the most frequent spinal disorders. The anatomy and the biomechanics of the intervertebral disc are very complex, and the pathomechanics of its degeneration are poorly understood. Despite this complexity and uncertainty, great advances have been made in the field of disc replacement technology, with promising results. Difficulties are continuously being encountered, but careful analysis of the results and intensive research and development will assist in countering these problems. There are approximately 40 clinical reports in the literature describing various aspects of randomised controlled trials involving intervertebral disc arthroplasty. However, the majority of these publications do not provide reliable information, in that they give only interim results and/or the results from just one of the many centres in multicentre studies. Such publications must be interpreted with caution, since they do not always represent the results of the whole study population and may hence be underpowered. We identified six randomised controlled trials that compared the final clinical outcomes of disc arthroplasty and spinal fusion. The present systematic review attempts to give an overview of the current status of disc arthroplasty.
Acta Neurochir (2010) 152:393–404. DOI 10.1007/s00701-009-0529-5
Degenerative disc disease is one of the most frequent spinal disorders. The anatomy and the biomechanics of the intervertebral disc are very complex, and the pathomechanics of its degeneration are poorly understood. Despite this complexity and uncertainty, great advances have been made in the field of disc replacement technology, with promising results. Difficulties are continuously being encountered, but careful analysis of the results and intensive research and development will assist in countering these problems. There are approximately 40 clinical reports in the literature describing various aspects of randomised controlled trials involving intervertebral disc arthroplasty. However, the majority of these publications do not provide reliable information, in that they give only interim results and/or the results from just one of the many centres in multicentre studies. Such publications must be interpreted with caution, since they do not always represent the results of the whole study population and may hence be underpowered. We identified six randomised controlled trials that compared the final clinical outcomes of disc arthroplasty and spinal fusion. The present systematic review attempts to give an overview of the current status of disc arthroplasty.
Eur Spine J (2011) 20:177–184. DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1583-7
