Contemporary decision-making factors leading to cervical disc replacement vs. fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy: survey opinions from members of the Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeon and Cervical Spine Research Society.

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Karim A Shafi, Adrian T H Lui, Christopher Mikhail, Kyle Morse, Joshua Zhang, Cole Kwas, Hyun Bae, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz Qureshi
{"title":"Contemporary decision-making factors leading to cervical disc replacement vs. fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy: survey opinions from members of the Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeon and Cervical Spine Research Society.","authors":"Karim A Shafi, Adrian T H Lui, Christopher Mikhail, Kyle Morse, Joshua Zhang, Cole Kwas, Hyun Bae, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz Qureshi","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Degenerative cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy are frequently encountered pathologies in spine surgery. Cervical disc replacement (CDR) offers a motion-preserving alternative to conventional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Presently, there is limited consensus on which variables impact the decision to perform fusion vs. arthroplasty for this disease.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to characterize current practices for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy and to identify and rank clinical and radiographic variables that most influence surgical decision making with regards to ACDF and arthroplasty.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>Descriptive, cross-sectional survey SUBJECT SAMPLE: An 11-item survey was distributed to surgeon attendees of the Cervical Spine Research Society's (CSRS) 52nd Annual Meeting and members of Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) in 2024.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Surgeons reported practice demographics, CDR training, attitude towards current literature, and adoption patterns. Surgeons were asked to rank 7 clinical factors and 8 radiographic parameters in order of importance when deciding between CDR vs ACDF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary analysis was performed to summarize demographic data, surgeon attitudes, and adoption. Descriptive and stratified analysis was performed to identify significant trends and associations among these factors. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked in order of importance and were compared. Rankings for each parameter were reported as means, highest and lowest rankings, and percentiles. Each parameter's ranking frequency was then reported as most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-five completed responses were received. Most respondents performed fewer than 25% CDR for primary cases, with only 4% reporting utilization rates of >75%. More private surgeons (50%) adopt CDR in >25% of their cases compared to academic surgeons (13%). CDR adoption varied significantly by region, with the Southwest (71%) and Southeast (57%) regions having the highest proportions of surgeons adopting >25% CDR in their practices as opposed to ACDF. The most cited barrier was risk-benefit trade-offs (28%). 87% of respondents viewed the current evidence for CDR as high quality, 11% rated it as low quality and unconvincing. Hypermobility/connective tissue disease and severe myelopathy were clinical deterrents for CDR. Segmental instability and significant kyphotic deformity were radiographic determinants for choosing ACDF over CDR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is limited evidence on the variables that most affect surgical decision-making when choosing between ACDF and CDR for degenerative cervical radiculopathy/myelopathy. Geographic location and practice type appear to be associated with CDR adoption rates. Hypermobility, severe myelopathy, segmental instability, and kyphotic deformity were agreed upon deterrents to CDR. These findings highlight the need for future prospective studies to reevaluate historical absolute contraindications and to develop clear guidelines for implementing CDR into modern clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.334","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Degenerative cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy are frequently encountered pathologies in spine surgery. Cervical disc replacement (CDR) offers a motion-preserving alternative to conventional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Presently, there is limited consensus on which variables impact the decision to perform fusion vs. arthroplasty for this disease.

Purpose: This study aims to characterize current practices for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy and to identify and rank clinical and radiographic variables that most influence surgical decision making with regards to ACDF and arthroplasty.

Study design/setting: Descriptive, cross-sectional survey SUBJECT SAMPLE: An 11-item survey was distributed to surgeon attendees of the Cervical Spine Research Society's (CSRS) 52nd Annual Meeting and members of Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) in 2024.

Outcome measures: Surgeons reported practice demographics, CDR training, attitude towards current literature, and adoption patterns. Surgeons were asked to rank 7 clinical factors and 8 radiographic parameters in order of importance when deciding between CDR vs ACDF.

Methods: Primary analysis was performed to summarize demographic data, surgeon attitudes, and adoption. Descriptive and stratified analysis was performed to identify significant trends and associations among these factors. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked in order of importance and were compared. Rankings for each parameter were reported as means, highest and lowest rankings, and percentiles. Each parameter's ranking frequency was then reported as most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important.

Results: Seventy-five completed responses were received. Most respondents performed fewer than 25% CDR for primary cases, with only 4% reporting utilization rates of >75%. More private surgeons (50%) adopt CDR in >25% of their cases compared to academic surgeons (13%). CDR adoption varied significantly by region, with the Southwest (71%) and Southeast (57%) regions having the highest proportions of surgeons adopting >25% CDR in their practices as opposed to ACDF. The most cited barrier was risk-benefit trade-offs (28%). 87% of respondents viewed the current evidence for CDR as high quality, 11% rated it as low quality and unconvincing. Hypermobility/connective tissue disease and severe myelopathy were clinical deterrents for CDR. Segmental instability and significant kyphotic deformity were radiographic determinants for choosing ACDF over CDR.

Conclusions: There is limited evidence on the variables that most affect surgical decision-making when choosing between ACDF and CDR for degenerative cervical radiculopathy/myelopathy. Geographic location and practice type appear to be associated with CDR adoption rates. Hypermobility, severe myelopathy, segmental instability, and kyphotic deformity were agreed upon deterrents to CDR. These findings highlight the need for future prospective studies to reevaluate historical absolute contraindications and to develop clear guidelines for implementing CDR into modern clinical practice.

微创脊柱外科医师协会和颈椎研究协会成员的调查意见:导致单节段退行性颈椎神经根病或脊髓病治疗的颈椎间盘置换与融合的当代决策因素。
背景:退行性颈椎神经根病和脊髓病是脊柱外科中常见的病变。颈椎间盘置换术(CDR)为传统的前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合(ACDF)提供了一种保持运动的选择。目前,对于哪些变量会影响对这种疾病进行融合或关节置换术的决定,人们的共识有限。目的:本研究旨在描述目前治疗单节段退行性颈椎神经根病或脊髓病的做法,并识别和排序影响ACDF和关节置换术手术决策的临床和影像学变量。研究设计/背景:描述性横断面调查受试者样本:一项11项的调查被分发给2024年参加颈椎研究学会(CSRS)第52届年会的外科医生和微创脊柱外科学会(SMISS)的成员。结果测量:外科医生报告执业人口统计、CDR培训、对当前文献的态度和采用模式。在决定CDR和ACDF时,要求外科医生对7个临床因素和8个放射学参数的重要性进行排序。方法:对人口统计学资料、外科医生态度和采用情况进行初步分析。进行了描述性和分层分析,以确定这些因素之间的显著趋势和关联。临床和影像学参数按重要性排序并进行比较。每个参数的排名以平均值、最高和最低排名和百分位数报告。然后将每个参数的排名频率报告为最重要、最重要的前3名和最重要的前5名。结果:共收到75份完整的问卷。大多数受访者对原发性病例的CDR使用率低于25%,只有4%的受访者报告使用率为25%至75%。与学术外科医生(13%)相比,私立外科医生(50%)采用CDR的比例更高(25%)。CDR的采用率因地区而异,西南地区(71%)和东南地区(57%)的医生在实践中采用CDR的比例最高,而ACDF的比例为25%。被提及最多的障碍是风险收益权衡(28%)。87%的受访者认为CDR的现有证据质量高,11%的受访者认为质量低且不可信。活动过度/结缔组织疾病和严重脊髓病是CDR的临床威慑因素。节段性不稳定和明显的后凸畸形是选择ACDF而不是CDR的影像学决定因素。结论:在选择ACDF和CDR治疗退行性颈椎神经根病/脊髓病时,影响手术决策的变量证据有限。地理位置和实践类型似乎与CDR采用率有关。过度活动,严重脊髓病,节段性不稳定和后凸畸形被认为是CDR的威慑因素。这些发现强调了未来前瞻性研究的必要性,以重新评估历史绝对禁忌症,并为在现代临床实践中实施CDR制定明确的指导方针。
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
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
×
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