ACE Report Cover
Cervical arthroplasty lead to better overall success compared to anterior fusion
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Language
Download Download Download
Download
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Cite
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favorites
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Language
Download Download Download
Download
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Cite
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favorites
SPINE
Cervical arthroplasty lead to better overall success compared to anterior fusion .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(19):42 J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 21;93(18):1684-92. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00476
Contributing Authors

RC Sasso PA Anderson KD Riew JG Heller

463 patients suffering from single-level degenerative disc disease were included in this trial to compare the outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). This publication aimed to assess the midterm safety and effectiveness of the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty. 463 patients were randomized to receive either the Bryan disc or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The assessment at 48 months revealed that the cervical disc arthroplasty led to superior results in terms of pain, function, and overall success when compared to ACDF.


Publication Funding Details +
Funding:
Industry funded
Sponsor:
Medtronic
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Risk of Bias

5/10

Reporting Criteria

8/20

Fragility Index

N/A

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.

1/4

Randomization

2/4

Outcome Measurements

2/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

0/4

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?

Cervical arthroplasty can be an alternate treatment option to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for patients suffering from single-level degenerative disc disease. A previous publication by the same authors reported the 2 year results from a trial that compared the Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. While cervical disc arthroplasty lead to better overall success, a longer follow-up study was required. Thus, this publication aimed to compare the 4 year clinical and functional outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus cervical discectomy and fusion from the same trial.

What was the principal research question?

Which method - cervical spine arthroplasty or anterior cervical discectomy and fusion - led to better overall success for the treatment of radiculopathy or myelopathy caused by single-level cervical disc disease, assessed at 48 months?

Study Characteristics +
Population:
463 patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy from single-level cervical disc disease secondary to disc herniation or focal osteophytes (n = 319 at 4 year follow-up).
Intervention:
Arthroplasty group: Patients received arthroplasty with the use of an artificial disc, the Bryan cervical disc. Further details of the procedure were not provided in this publication (n = 242; 181 at 4 year follow-up).
Comparison:
Fusion group: Patients received fusion with anterior cervical plate stabilization and bone allograft. Further details of the procedure were not provided in this publication (n = 221; 138 at 4 year follow-up).
Outcomes:
The primary outcome measure was the overall success of treatment; for the outcome to be considered an overall success, patients had to demonstrate the following: an improvement of >15 points in the Neck Disability Index (NDI), neurological improvement, no serious adverse events, and no consequent surgery or intervention that would be categorized as a treatment failure. Pain and function were assessed with the use of NDI, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain.
Methods:
RCT: Prospective; Multicentre
Time:
48 months (assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 24 months, and 48 months).
What were the important findings?
  • At 4 years, the overall success was better in the arthroplasty group (85.1%) compared to the fusion group (72.5%) (P = 0.004).
  • At 4 years, the mean NDI was lower in the arthroplasty group (13.2 (95% CI: 10.9 to 15.6)) in comparison to the fusion group (19.8 (95% CI: 16.5 to 23.2), P < 0.001).
  • In terms of neurological success, the mean rates were 92.8% for the arthroplasty group and 89.9% for the fusion group; there was no significant difference (P > 0.05).
  • The arm pain score improved rapidly for both groups, from a preoperative score of 71.2 in both groups to 16.6 (95% CI: 13.1 to 20.2) in the arthroplasty group and to 22.4 (95% CI: 17.7 to 27.1) in the fusion group at 4 years; the improvement was significantly better in the arthroplasty group (P = 0.028).
  • Neck pain improved from 75.4 to 20.7 (95% CI: 17.0 to 24.4) in the arthroplasty group and from 74.8 to 30.6 (95% CI: 25.5 to 35.8) in the fusion group at 4 years; the improvement was significantly greater in the arthroplasty group at all time points (P < 0.05).
  • At 4 years, the mean SF-36 physical component score improvement was significantly better (P = 0.007) in the arthroplasty group (from 32.6 to 48.4 (95% CI: 46.8 to 49.9) compared to the fusion group (from 31.8 to 44.9 (95% CI: 43.0 to 46.9).
  • The rates of total and serious adverse events were similar between both groups.
What should I remember most?

This study demonstrated that cervical disc arthroplasty continued to provide superior results at 4 years in comparison to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The arthroplasty treatment led to significantly higher rate of overall success and greater improvements in NDI, neck and arm pain, and SF-36 physical component scores.

How will this affect the care of my patients?

This study suggests that cervical disc arthroplasty provides better clinical improvement compared to cervical fusion. However, a longer-term follow-up study is required in order to investigate the potential problems related to bearing surface wear. Additionally, an assessment of adjacent-level disc degeneration and secondary surgeries should be conducted in the long-term follow-up.

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
You've reached your limit of 4 free articles views this month

Access to OrthoEvidence for as little as $1.99 per week.

Stay connected with latest evidence. Cancel at any time.
  • Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
  • Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
  • Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Upgrade
Welcome Back!
Forgot Password?
Start your FREE trial today!

Your account will be affiliated with
and includes free access to OrthoEvidence


OR
Forgot Password?

OR
Please check your email

If an account exists with the provided email address, a password reset email will be sent to you. If you don't see an email, please check your spam or junk folder.

For further assistance, contact our support team.

Please login to enable this feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into an active OrthoEvidence account. Please log in or create a FREE trial account.

Translate ACE Report

OrthoEvidence utilizes a third-party translation service to make content accessible in multiple languages. Please note that while every effort is made to ensure accuracy, translations may not always be perfect.

How to cite this ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Cervical arthroplasty lead to better overall success compared to anterior fusion. OE Journal. 2013;1(19):42. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/cervical-arthroplasty-lead-to-better-overall-success-compared-to-anterior-fusion

Copy Citation
Please login to enable this feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into an active OrthoEvidence account. Please log in or create a FREE trial account.

Premium Member Feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into a premium OrthoEvidence account.

Share this ACE Report