IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0087191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Superior to Corpectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy? A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ying-Chao Han
  • Zhu-Qing Liu
  • Shan-Jin Wang
  • Li-Jun Li
  • Jun Tan

Abstract

Objective: Both anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF) are used to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), however, there is considerable controversy as to whether ACDF or ACCF is the optimal treatment for this condition. To compare the clinical outcomes, complications, and surgical trauma between ACDF and ACCF for the treatment of CSM, we conducted a meta-analysis. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases, searching for relevant controlled trials up to July 2013 that compared ACDF and ACCF for the treatment of CSM. We performed title and abstract screening and full-text screening independently and in duplicate. A random effects model was used for heterogeneous data; otherwise, a fixed effect model was used to pool data, using mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes. Results: Of 2157 citations examined, 15 articles representing 1372 participants were eligible. Overall, there were significant differences between the two treatment groups for hospital stay (M = −5.60, 95% CI = −7.09 to −4.11), blood loss (MD = −151.35, 95% CI = −253.22 to −49.48), complications (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.73) and increased lordosis of C2–C7 (MD = 3.70, 95% CI = 0.96 to 6.45) and fusion segments angles (MD = 3.38, 95% CI = 2.54 to 4.22). However, there were no significant differences in the operation time (MD = −9.34, 95% CI = −42.99 to 24.31), JOA (MD = 0.24, 95% CI = −0.10 to 0.57), VAS (MD = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.81 to 0.70), NDI (MD = −1.37, 95% CI = −3.17 to 0.43), Odom criteria (OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.30) or fusion rate (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.34 to 4.11). Conclusions: Based on this meta-analysis, although complications and increased lordosis are significantly better in the ACDF group, there is no strong evidence to support the routine use of ACDF over ACCF in CSM.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying-Chao Han & Zhu-Qing Liu & Shan-Jin Wang & Li-Jun Li & Jun Tan, 2014. "Is Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Superior to Corpectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy? A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0087191
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087191
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087191&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0087191?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. Sheyu Li & Qianrui Li & Yun Li & Ling Li & Haoming Tian & Xin Sun, 2015. "Acetyl-L-Carnitine in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-10, March.

    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:pone00:0087191. 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.