A Meta-Analysis of Surgical Outcomes in 25727 Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion or Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Cervical Deformity.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1177/21925682241270100
Karma Barot, Miguel A Ruiz-Cardozo, Som Singh, Gabriel Trevino, Michael R Kann, Samuel Brehm, Tim Bui, Karan Joseph, Rujvee Patel, Angela Hardi, Alexander T Yahanda, Julio J Jauregui, Magalie Cadieux, Brenton Pennicooke, Camilo A Molina
{"title":"A Meta-Analysis of Surgical Outcomes in 25727 Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion or Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Cervical Deformity.","authors":"Karma Barot, Miguel A Ruiz-Cardozo, Som Singh, Gabriel Trevino, Michael R Kann, Samuel Brehm, Tim Bui, Karan Joseph, Rujvee Patel, Angela Hardi, Alexander T Yahanda, Julio J Jauregui, Magalie Cadieux, Brenton Pennicooke, Camilo A Molina","doi":"10.1177/21925682241270100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic Review.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate which cervical deformity correction technique between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) produces better clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a meta-analysis comparing studies involving ACDF and ACCF. Adult patients with either original or previously treated cervical spine deformities were included. Two independent reviewers categorized extracted data into clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes, including complications. Clinical assessments included patient-reported outcomes; radiographic evaluations examined C2-C7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, T1-CL, C2-7 SVA, and graft stability. Surgical measures included surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>26 studies (25727 patients) met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Of these, 14 studies (19077 patients) with low risk of bias were included in meta-analysis. ACDF and ACCF similarly improve clinical outcomes in terms of JOA and NDI, but ACDF is significantly better at achieving lower VAS neck scores. ACDF is also more advantageous for improving cervical lordosis and minimizing the incidence of graft complications. While there is no significant difference between approaches for most surgical complications, ACDF is favorable for reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While both techniques benefit cervical deformity patients, when both techniques are feasible, ACDF may be superior with respect to VAS neck scores, cervical lordosis, graft complications and certain perioperative outcomes. Further studies are recommended to address outcome variability and refine surgical approach selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1390-1404"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571742/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241270100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Systematic Review.

Objectives: To evaluate which cervical deformity correction technique between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) produces better clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis comparing studies involving ACDF and ACCF. Adult patients with either original or previously treated cervical spine deformities were included. Two independent reviewers categorized extracted data into clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes, including complications. Clinical assessments included patient-reported outcomes; radiographic evaluations examined C2-C7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, T1-CL, C2-7 SVA, and graft stability. Surgical measures included surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications.

Results: 26 studies (25727 patients) met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Of these, 14 studies (19077 patients) with low risk of bias were included in meta-analysis. ACDF and ACCF similarly improve clinical outcomes in terms of JOA and NDI, but ACDF is significantly better at achieving lower VAS neck scores. ACDF is also more advantageous for improving cervical lordosis and minimizing the incidence of graft complications. While there is no significant difference between approaches for most surgical complications, ACDF is favorable for reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay.

Conclusions: While both techniques benefit cervical deformity patients, when both techniques are feasible, ACDF may be superior with respect to VAS neck scores, cervical lordosis, graft complications and certain perioperative outcomes. Further studies are recommended to address outcome variability and refine surgical approach selection.

对 25727 例因颈椎畸形而接受颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合术或颈椎前路椎体后凸切除术和融合术的患者的手术效果进行的 Meta 分析。
研究设计系统回顾:评估颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)和颈椎前路椎体后凸切除融合术(ACCF)中哪一种颈椎畸形矫正技术能产生更好的临床、影像学和手术效果:我们对涉及 ACDF 和 ACCF 的研究进行了荟萃分析比较。方法:我们对 ACDF 和 ACCF 的研究进行了荟萃分析比较。两位独立审稿人将提取的数据归类为临床、影像学和手术结果,包括并发症。临床评估包括患者报告的结果;放射学评估检查了C2-C7 Cobb角、T1斜度、T1-CL、C2-7 SVA和移植物稳定性。手术测量包括手术时间、失血量、住院时间和并发症。结果:26 项研究(25727 名患者)符合纳入标准并被提取。其中14项研究(19077名患者)偏倚风险较低,被纳入荟萃分析。从 JOA 和 NDI 角度看,ACDF 和 ACCF 同样能改善临床疗效,但 ACDF 在获得较低的 VAS 颈部评分方面明显更胜一筹。ACDF 在改善颈椎前凸和减少移植物并发症方面也更具优势。虽然两种方法在大多数手术并发症方面没有明显差异,但 ACDF 在减少手术时间、术中失血量和住院时间方面更有优势:结论:虽然两种技术都能使颈椎畸形患者受益,但当两种技术都可行时,ACDF在VAS颈部评分、颈椎前凸、移植物并发症和某些围手术期结果方面可能更胜一筹。建议进一步开展研究,以解决结果的可变性并完善手术方法的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信