Karim A Shafi, Adrian T H Lui, Christopher Mikhail, Kyle Morse, Joshua Zhang, Cole Kwas, Hyun Bae, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz Qureshi
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.