Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion vs. Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for 2-Level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.4 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2025-03-25 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00204
Aman Verma, Anil Kumar, Utsav Anand, Siddharth Sekhar Sethy, Aakash Jain, Vibhor Abrol, Kaustubh Ahuja, Bhaskar Sarkar, Pankaj Kandwal
{"title":"Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion vs. Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for 2-Level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Aman Verma, Anil Kumar, Utsav Anand, Siddharth Sekhar Sethy, Aakash Jain, Vibhor Abrol, Kaustubh Ahuja, Bhaskar Sarkar, Pankaj Kandwal","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common cause of progressive neurological decline in elderly patients, often necessitating surgical decompression. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) are commonly used procedures. However, there is no consensus on the superior approach, particularly in cases involving 2-level CSM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched for studies comparing perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes of ACDF and ACCF in 2-level CSM. Fourteen studies with 4,449 patients (ACDF: 2,265, ACCF: 2,184) met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes analyzed included operating (OR) time, blood loss, hospital stay, patient-reported outcomes (Neck Disability Index [NDI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS], modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA], Odom criteria), radiological parameters, complications, and fusion rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ACDF was associated with significantly shorter OR time, reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower overall complication rates compared with ACCF. Both procedures showed comparable improvements in NDI, VAS, and mJOA scores. ACDF demonstrated superior postoperative cervical alignment, with greater improvements in global and segmental lordosis. Complication rates, including implant-related issues, were higher in the ACCF group, while reoperation and fusion rates were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ACDF and ACCF significantly improve functional outcomes in 2-level CSM. However, ACDF demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes, complications, and cervical alignment. While ACDF is associated with shorter OR time and fewer complications, ACCF may be necessary in cases with extensive disk herniation or other pathologies requiring direct decompression posterior to the vertebral body. Surgical decisions should be individualized based on patient-specific pathology.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"13 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common cause of progressive neurological decline in elderly patients, often necessitating surgical decompression. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) are commonly used procedures. However, there is no consensus on the superior approach, particularly in cases involving 2-level CSM.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched for studies comparing perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes of ACDF and ACCF in 2-level CSM. Fourteen studies with 4,449 patients (ACDF: 2,265, ACCF: 2,184) met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes analyzed included operating (OR) time, blood loss, hospital stay, patient-reported outcomes (Neck Disability Index [NDI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS], modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA], Odom criteria), radiological parameters, complications, and fusion rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics.

Results: ACDF was associated with significantly shorter OR time, reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower overall complication rates compared with ACCF. Both procedures showed comparable improvements in NDI, VAS, and mJOA scores. ACDF demonstrated superior postoperative cervical alignment, with greater improvements in global and segmental lordosis. Complication rates, including implant-related issues, were higher in the ACCF group, while reoperation and fusion rates were similar.

Conclusion: Both ACDF and ACCF significantly improve functional outcomes in 2-level CSM. However, ACDF demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes, complications, and cervical alignment. While ACDF is associated with shorter OR time and fewer complications, ACCF may be necessary in cases with extensive disk herniation or other pathologies requiring direct decompression posterior to the vertebral body. Surgical decisions should be individualized based on patient-specific pathology.

Level of evidence: Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合vs.前路颈椎椎体切除术和融合治疗2节段退行性颈椎病:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)是老年患者进行性神经功能衰退的常见原因,通常需要手术减压。前路颈椎椎间盘切除术融合术(ACDF)和前路颈椎椎体切除术融合术(ACCF)是常用的手术。然而,对于哪种方法更好,特别是两层CSM的病例,并没有一致的意见。方法:根据系统评价和元分析指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价和元分析。检索PubMed、Cochrane、Scopus和Embase数据库,比较ACDF和ACCF在2级CSM患者围手术期、临床和放射学结果的研究。14项研究4449例患者(ACDF: 2265例,ACCF: 2184例)符合纳入标准。结果分析包括手术(OR)时间、出血量、住院时间、患者报告的结果(颈部残疾指数(NDI)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)、修正日本骨科协会(mJOA)、奥多姆标准)、放射学参数、并发症和融合率。使用Review Manager 5.4进行统计分析,使用I2统计量评估异质性。结果:与ACCF相比,ACDF显着缩短了手术室时间,减少了出血量,缩短了住院时间,降低了总并发症发生率。两种方法在NDI、VAS和mJOA评分方面均显示出可比性的改善。ACDF显示出更好的术后颈椎直线,整体和节段性前凸有更大的改善。并发症发生率,包括种植体相关问题,在ACCF组较高,而再手术率和融合率相似。结论:ACDF和ACCF均能显著改善2级CSM的功能结局。然而,ACDF在围手术期结局、并发症和颈椎对齐方面显示出优势。虽然ACDF与更短的手术时间和更少的并发症相关,但对于广泛的椎间盘突出或其他需要椎体后部直接减压的病变,ACCF可能是必要的。手术决定应根据患者的具体病理进行个体化。证据等级:二级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
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
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信