IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0035032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Incidence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA): A Meta Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Baohui Yang
  • Haopeng Li
  • Ting Zhang
  • Xijing He
  • Siyue Xu

Abstract

Background: Cervical disc arthroplasty is being used as an alternative degenerative disc disease treatment with fusion of the cervical spine in order to preserve motion. However, whether replacement arthoplasty in the spine achieves its primary patient centered objective of lowering the frequency of adjacent segment degeneration is not verified yet. Methodology: We conducted a meta-analysis according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration using databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase. The inclusion criteria were: 1) Randomized, controlled study of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine involving single segment or double segments using Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) as controls; 2) A minimum of two-year follow-up using imaging and clinical analyses; 3) Definite diagnostic evidences for “adjacent segment degeneration” and “adjacent segment disease”; 4) At least a minimum of 30 patients per population. Two authors independently selected trials; assessed methodological quality, extracted data and the results were pooled. Results: No study has specifically compared the results of adjacent segment degenerative; Two papers describing 140 patients with 162 symptomatic cervical segment disorders and compared the rate of postoperative adjacent segment disease development between CDA and ACDF treatments, three publications describing the rate of adjacent-segment surgery including 1273 patients with symptomatic cervical segments. The result of the meta-analysis indicates that there were fewer the rate of adjacent segment disease and the rate for adjacent-segment surgery comparing CDA with ACDF, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Based on available evidence, it cannot be concluded, that CDA can significantly reduce the postoperative rate of the adjacent segment degenerative and adjacent segment disease. However, due to some limitations, the results of this meta-analysis should be cautiously accepted, and further studies are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Baohui Yang & Haopeng Li & Ting Zhang & Xijing He & Siyue Xu, 2012. "The Incidence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA): A Meta Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-7, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0035032
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035032
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035032&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0035032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dariusz Latka & Kajetan Latka & Grzegorz Miekisiak & Klaudia Kozlowska & Tomasz Olbrycht & Jacek Chowaniec, 2019. "Cervical Disc Arthroplasty -Efficacy and Indications. Single Center Long-Term Cohort Study Compared to Rcts’ Results," Open Access Journal of Neurology & Neurosurgery, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 11(2), pages 23-32, July.
    2. Qi-ling Yuan & Tuan-mao Guo & Liang Liu & Fu Sun & Yin-gang Zhang, 2015. "Traditional Chinese Medicine for Neck Pain and Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-37, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0035032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.