{"title":"颈椎病的前路颈椎间盘切除术和无钢板融合(ACDFWP)与前路颈椎间盘置换术(ACDA):荟萃分析和文献回顾。","authors":"Jiajie Peng, Sihan Li, Xiangying Lin, Degui Zhong, Rong Zheng, Minghan Huang, Pengfei Li, Hongmei Song, Tetsuya Asakawa","doi":"10.5582/irdr.2022.01080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes between two alternative surgeries for patients with cervical spondylosis, namely anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) without plate (ACDFWP) vs. anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA). We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (firstly available-2019). A standard meta-analysis was performed with the included studies. A Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for the evaluation of the study quality of nonrandomized-controlled trials (nRCTs), while a Risk of Bias (RoB) battery was used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eight studies involving 640 patients were included. No significant difference was found in the indices of Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, Visual Analog Score (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, operative time, blood loss, Swallowing Quality of Life Score (SWAL-QL), and complications. Cervical alignment was significantly better in the ACDFWP than in ACDA (mean difference (MD) = -0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.11, -0.23], <i>P</i> = 0.003, <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 20%). Although the alternative ACDFWP was slightly superior in terms of the index of cervical alignment, the limited research on this subject present insufficient evidence. Further well-designed studies are warranted in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":14420,"journal":{"name":"Intractable & rare diseases research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437997/pdf/irdr-11-105.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion without plate (ACDFWP) versus anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) for cervical spondylosis: A meta-analysis and literature review.\",\"authors\":\"Jiajie Peng, Sihan Li, Xiangying Lin, Degui Zhong, Rong Zheng, Minghan Huang, Pengfei Li, Hongmei Song, Tetsuya Asakawa\",\"doi\":\"10.5582/irdr.2022.01080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes between two alternative surgeries for patients with cervical spondylosis, namely anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) without plate (ACDFWP) vs. anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA). We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (firstly available-2019). A standard meta-analysis was performed with the included studies. A Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for the evaluation of the study quality of nonrandomized-controlled trials (nRCTs), while a Risk of Bias (RoB) battery was used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eight studies involving 640 patients were included. No significant difference was found in the indices of Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, Visual Analog Score (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, operative time, blood loss, Swallowing Quality of Life Score (SWAL-QL), and complications. Cervical alignment was significantly better in the ACDFWP than in ACDA (mean difference (MD) = -0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.11, -0.23], <i>P</i> = 0.003, <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 20%). Although the alternative ACDFWP was slightly superior in terms of the index of cervical alignment, the limited research on this subject present insufficient evidence. Further well-designed studies are warranted in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intractable & rare diseases research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437997/pdf/irdr-11-105.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intractable & rare diseases research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5582/irdr.2022.01080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intractable & rare diseases research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5582/irdr.2022.01080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本荟萃分析比较了颈椎病患者的两种替代手术的临床结果,即前路颈椎间盘切除术和融合(ACDF)无钢板(ACDFWP)与前路颈椎间盘置换术(ACDA)。我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、Google Scholar和Web of Science(2019年首次可用)等数据库。对纳入的研究进行标准荟萃分析。评价非随机对照试验(nRCTs)的研究质量采用ROBINS-I工具,评价随机对照试验(rct)的研究质量采用robs工具。纳入了涉及640例患者的8项研究。两组患者的颈部残疾指数(NDI)评分、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、手术时间、出血量、吞咽生活质量评分(sval - ql)、并发症等指标均无显著差异。ACDFWP组的颈椎对正性明显优于ACDA组(平均差值(MD) = -0.67, 95%可信区间(CI) [-1.11, -0.23], P = 0.003, i2 = 20%)。虽然替代ACDFWP在颈椎对正指数方面略优于ACDFWP,但有限的研究表明证据不足。未来需要进一步精心设计的研究。
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion without plate (ACDFWP) versus anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) for cervical spondylosis: A meta-analysis and literature review.
This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes between two alternative surgeries for patients with cervical spondylosis, namely anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) without plate (ACDFWP) vs. anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA). We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (firstly available-2019). A standard meta-analysis was performed with the included studies. A Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for the evaluation of the study quality of nonrandomized-controlled trials (nRCTs), while a Risk of Bias (RoB) battery was used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eight studies involving 640 patients were included. No significant difference was found in the indices of Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, Visual Analog Score (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, operative time, blood loss, Swallowing Quality of Life Score (SWAL-QL), and complications. Cervical alignment was significantly better in the ACDFWP than in ACDA (mean difference (MD) = -0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.11, -0.23], P = 0.003, I2 = 20%). Although the alternative ACDFWP was slightly superior in terms of the index of cervical alignment, the limited research on this subject present insufficient evidence. Further well-designed studies are warranted in the future.