Author
Listed:
- Floor E de Vries
- Ignacio Mesina-Estarrón
- Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp
Abstract
Introduction: Fusion achievement is considered a crucial factor in recovery following anterior discectomy. Nevertheless, the direct correlation between fusion and clinical outcomes, such as pain and disability, remains ambiguous due to inconsistent fusion measurement methods. Recent advancements in diagnostic fusion criteria now enable a more accurate fusion assessment. This study aimed to assess the association between fusion and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy. Methods: This post-hoc analysis was conducted using data from the NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) trial (NTR1289). Patients with a single level herniated disc that underwent anterior cervical discectomy between 2010 and 2014 were evaluated at 52, 104, and 260 weeks. Fusion was assessed using dynamic radiographs, applying the de Vries-Vleggeert criterion (≤3.0° Cobb angle and ≤2.0 mm interspinous distance). Clinical outcomes included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for arm and neck pain. Linear and logistic regressions were performed to evaluate correlations. Results: Fusion was present in 57% (52 weeks), 75% (104 weeks), and 83% (260 weeks) of patients. Linear regression analyses revealed a clear trend suggesting favorable long-term VAS arm and neck pain scores in the patient’s demonstrating fusion with statistically significant lower VAS arm pain (mean difference: –18.9, 95% CI –36.9 to –0.9, p = 0.040) in the fusion group at 260 weeks follow-up. At earlier follow-up points, the differences in VAS arm pain did show a trend, but did not reach statistical significance (W52: 6.0, 95% CI –6.6 to 18.6, p = 0.346; W104: –11.5, 95% CI –24.2 to 1.3, p = 0.076). VAS neck pain scores showed a trend, but no statistically significant differences between groups across follow-up (W52: 3.2, 95% CI –8.1 to 14.5, p = 0.572; W104: –1.5, 95% CI –13.8 to 10.8, p = 0.808; W260: –12.7, 95% CI –30.9 to 5.6, p = 0.170). No significant differences were observed in NDI outcomes at any time point (W52: 3.2, 95% CI –4.8 to 11.2, p = 0.431; W104: –3.7, 95% CI –11.6 to 4.2, p = 0.358; W260: 2.5, 95% CI –7.2 to 12.1, p = 0.608). Logistic regression analysis using success rates based on established cut-off values showed a trend towards patients with fusion having markedly higher odds of success long term, with a significant higher odd of success in VAS arm pain at 260 weeks FU (OR 9.88, 95% CI 1.55–62.80, p = 0.015). Conclusion: A comparative analysis indicated reduced arm and neck pain in the fusion group at the 260-week follow-up. This finding becomes apparent only in the long-term post-intervention period, suggesting that muscle tension may function as a natural brace during the initial years following surgery. This tension effectively limits excessive flexion-extension movements, thereby mitigating discomfort. These results have potential implications for routine clinical surgical practice. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these findings, including short-term follow-up.
Suggested Citation
Floor E de Vries & Ignacio Mesina-Estarrón & Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp, 2025.
"Association between fusion and clinical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy at 1-, 2- and 5-year follow-up,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(12), pages 1-14, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0337909
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337909
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0337909. 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.