Adjacent segment degeneration incidence uninfluenced by Total Disc Arthroplasty .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
This study has been identified as potentially high impact.
OE's AI-driven High Impact metric estimates the influence a paper is likely to have by integrating signals from both the journal in which it is published and the scientific content of the article itself.
Developed using state-of-the-art natural language processing, the OE High Impact model more accurately predicts a study's future citation performance than journal impact factor alone.
This enables earlier recognition of clinically meaningful research and helps readers focus on articles most likely to shape future practice.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(8):23 Spine Journal; 2010; 10; 1043-104893 patients, with mono or bi-level cervical disc symptomatic disease and upon failure of conservative treatment, were randomized to undergo total disc arthroplasty (TDA) or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Primary Outcome Measures were Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Neck Disability Index and Radiographic Assessment were made at different time points until 48 months. Both the ACDF and TDA procedures were found to be equivalent for rendering pain relief in both mono and bi level disc disease and had equivalent risks for inducing adjacent segment degeneration. Interestingly, it was observed that patients with concurrent degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine had greater likelihood of developing adjacent segment degeneration.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Yes = 1
Uncertain = 0.5
Not Relevant = 0
No = 0
The Reporting Criteria Assessment evaluates the transparency with which authors report the methodological and trial characteristics of the trial within the publication. The assessment is divided into five categories which are presented below.
3/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
1/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
3/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
The Fragility Index is a tool that aids in the interpretation of significant findings, providing a measure of strength for a result. The Fragility Index represents the number of consecutive events that need to be added to a dichotomous outcome to make the finding no longer significant. A small number represents a weaker finding and a large number represents a stronger finding.
Why was this study needed now?
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an established treatment for the degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine; however, the development of implants and procedures to restore motion, segmental anatomy, and function shows success after further investigation. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of adjacent segment disease in patients treated for degenerative disc disease with either total disc arthroplasty or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
What was the principal research question?
Is there a difference in incidence of adjacent segment disease after patients with degenerative disc disease are treated with either total disc arthroplasty or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?
- The success rates were similar in procedures, 71% in TDA and 73.5% in ACDF, and median symptom-free survival period was 39.79+/-1.9 months for ACDF and 38.09+/- 1.9 months for TDA patients. Smokers had a trend towards worse survival rates (p=0.17) for both procedures.
- VAS and NDI scale were similar between groups (p-value = 0.693)
- No statistical difference was noted between groups in terms of development of adjacent lumbar disease (p-value = 0.885)
- Presence of documented lumbar disease was a statistically significant risk factor for development of adjacent lumbar disease (p-value = 0.016)
What should I remember most?
Total disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion have the same clinical outcomes. However, lumbar disease increases the risk of adjacent cervical degenerative disc disease.
How will this affect the care of my patients?
This study suggests that both techniques are equivalent in treating degenerative disc disease and do not increase risk of adjacent lumbar disease compared to one another. The study also notes that lumbar disease is a significant risk factor for development of adjacent cervical degenerative disc disease. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians consider other factors before considering which treatment is most appropriate for patients.
DISCLAIMER
This content found on this page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you require medical treatment, always seek the advice of your physician or go to your nearest emergency department. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the individuals on the content found on this page do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of OrthoEvidence.
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
