{"title":"颈椎间盘置换术与前路颈椎间盘切除术融合治疗脊髓型颈椎病的疗效比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"WeiDong Huang, ShuangHua Liu, ZePeng Cai, Jia Liao, YiMei Tan, Shuan Wu, JunLang Zhu, XuQiao Zhang","doi":"10.3171/2024.12.SPINE24623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) presents a clinical conundrum, with cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) emerging as primary contenders. However, the comparative advantages and limitations of these interventions remain contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to scrutinize the efficacy and safety profiles of CDA and ACDF in addressing CSM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adhering rigorously to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the authors conducted an exhaustive systematic search across reputable databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of CDA versus ACDF for CSM were meticulously selected for comprehensive evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 2612 patients (1464 CDA, 1148 ACDF) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that compared with ACDF, CDA was associated with better overall success (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37; p = 0.004; I2 = 71%). In terms of Neck Disability Index and neck visual analog scale (VAS), compared with ACDF, the CDA group showed superior performance at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. The performance on the arm VAS at 3 and 12 months after surgery was the same. The operative time for the CDA group was significantly longer than that of the ACDF group. There were no significant differences in neurological success; radiological success; arm VAS scores at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 24 months postoperatively; range of motion; SF-36 mental component summary and physical component summary scores; surgical blood loss; dysphagia/dysphonia; and rate of any adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In contrast to ACDF, CDA exhibited superior clinical efficacy and a more favorable safety profile in the management of CSM. Notably, discernible disparities were observed in the enhancement of neck pain as measured by the VAS within the initial postoperative year. It is imperative to note, however, that the body of evidence supporting these conclusions remains relatively scant, necessitating comprehensive validation through expanded multicenter randomized controlled trials encompassing substantial sample sizes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of outcomes between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"WeiDong Huang, ShuangHua Liu, ZePeng Cai, Jia Liao, YiMei Tan, Shuan Wu, JunLang Zhu, XuQiao Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2024.12.SPINE24623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) presents a clinical conundrum, with cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) emerging as primary contenders. However, the comparative advantages and limitations of these interventions remain contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to scrutinize the efficacy and safety profiles of CDA and ACDF in addressing CSM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adhering rigorously to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the authors conducted an exhaustive systematic search across reputable databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of CDA versus ACDF for CSM were meticulously selected for comprehensive evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 2612 patients (1464 CDA, 1148 ACDF) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that compared with ACDF, CDA was associated with better overall success (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37; p = 0.004; I2 = 71%). In terms of Neck Disability Index and neck visual analog scale (VAS), compared with ACDF, the CDA group showed superior performance at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. The performance on the arm VAS at 3 and 12 months after surgery was the same. The operative time for the CDA group was significantly longer than that of the ACDF group. There were no significant differences in neurological success; radiological success; arm VAS scores at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 24 months postoperatively; range of motion; SF-36 mental component summary and physical component summary scores; surgical blood loss; dysphagia/dysphonia; and rate of any adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In contrast to ACDF, CDA exhibited superior clinical efficacy and a more favorable safety profile in the management of CSM. Notably, discernible disparities were observed in the enhancement of neck pain as measured by the VAS within the initial postoperative year. It is imperative to note, however, that the body of evidence supporting these conclusions remains relatively scant, necessitating comprehensive validation through expanded multicenter randomized controlled trials encompassing substantial sample sizes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.12.SPINE24623\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.12.SPINE24623","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)的治疗是一个临床难题,颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)和前路颈椎间盘切除术融合术(ACDF)成为主要的竞争者。然而,这些干预措施的相对优势和局限性仍然存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在审查CDA和ACDF治疗CSM的疗效和安全性。方法:严格遵循PRISMA(系统评价和元分析首选报告项目)指南,作者在PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、Scopus和中国国家知识基础设施等知名数据库中进行了详尽的系统搜索。评估CDA与ACDF治疗CSM的疗效和安全性的随机对照试验被精心选择以进行综合评价。结果:本meta分析共纳入12项随机对照试验,涉及2612例患者(1464例CDA, 1148例ACDF)。合并结果显示,与ACDF相比,CDA与更好的总体成功率相关(RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37;P = 0.004;I2 = 71%)。在颈部残疾指数和颈部视觉模拟评分(VAS)方面,CDA组在术后6周、3个月、6个月、12个月和24个月均优于ACDF组。术后3个月和12个月的手臂VAS表现相同。CDA组手术时间明显长于ACDF组。在神经系统成功方面没有显著差异;放射成功;术后6周、6个月和24个月的VAS评分;活动范围;SF-36心理部分总结和身体部分总结得分;手术失血;吞咽困难/发声困难;以及任何不良事件的发生率。结论:与ACDF相比,CDA在治疗CSM方面表现出更优越的临床疗效和更有利的安全性。值得注意的是,在术后最初一年内,VAS测量的颈部疼痛的增强中观察到明显的差异。然而,必须注意的是,支持这些结论的证据仍然相对较少,需要通过扩大多中心随机对照试验进行全面验证,包括大量样本量。
Comparison of outcomes between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: The management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) presents a clinical conundrum, with cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) emerging as primary contenders. However, the comparative advantages and limitations of these interventions remain contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to scrutinize the efficacy and safety profiles of CDA and ACDF in addressing CSM.
Methods: Adhering rigorously to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the authors conducted an exhaustive systematic search across reputable databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of CDA versus ACDF for CSM were meticulously selected for comprehensive evaluation.
Results: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 2612 patients (1464 CDA, 1148 ACDF) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that compared with ACDF, CDA was associated with better overall success (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37; p = 0.004; I2 = 71%). In terms of Neck Disability Index and neck visual analog scale (VAS), compared with ACDF, the CDA group showed superior performance at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. The performance on the arm VAS at 3 and 12 months after surgery was the same. The operative time for the CDA group was significantly longer than that of the ACDF group. There were no significant differences in neurological success; radiological success; arm VAS scores at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 24 months postoperatively; range of motion; SF-36 mental component summary and physical component summary scores; surgical blood loss; dysphagia/dysphonia; and rate of any adverse event.
Conclusions: In contrast to ACDF, CDA exhibited superior clinical efficacy and a more favorable safety profile in the management of CSM. Notably, discernible disparities were observed in the enhancement of neck pain as measured by the VAS within the initial postoperative year. It is imperative to note, however, that the body of evidence supporting these conclusions remains relatively scant, necessitating comprehensive validation through expanded multicenter randomized controlled trials encompassing substantial sample sizes.
期刊介绍:
Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.