Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion Group Research Articles

Short-term efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.

To compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology (UBE) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF)for the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). Retrospective analysis of 60 patients with CSR, of which 30 were treated with ACDF (group A) and 30 were treated with UBE (group B). Cision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, postoperative complications preoperative and postoperative VAS, NDI scores, height and stability of the liability gap were compared between the two groups. Compared with the A group, the incision length, duration and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in the B group (P < 0.05), and the difference was statistically significant. As the postoperative time increased, the VAS score and NDI score decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.05or < 0.01). However, the differences in VAS and NDI scores between the two groups at the corresponding time points were not statistically significant, and only the VAS score at 1day postoperatively showed a more pronounced decrease in the B group, which was statistically significant compared with that in the A group. The difference in intervertebral space height and stability of the postoperative liability gap between the two groups at the final follow-up was not statistically significant when compared with the preoperative period. The incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups was smaller in the B group than in the A group, and the difference was not statistically significant. UBE can effectively treat patients with single-segment CRS and promote rapid recovery.

Overloaded Vertebral Body Following Consecutive Three-Level Hybrid Surgery Comparing with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Based on the varying number and relative positions of cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures, three-segment hybrid surgery (HS) presents a diverse structural approach. Currently, the potential differential effects of HS with different segment combinations and surgical procedures on overloaded vertebral body (OVB) occurrence remain unexplored. The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of HS and ACDF in treating cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD), aiming to provide further insights into OVB. This study included patients with three-level CDDD who underwent ACDF or HS at our institution. Eligible patients were divided into three groups: Type I (one-level CDR and two-level ACDF), Type II (two-level CDR and one-level ACDF), and ACDF (three-level ACDF). For radiographic analysis, patients were further divided into the Replacement Segment Group and the Nonreplacement Segment Group based on the presence of replacement segments above and below the OVB. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and neck disability index (NDI) scores. The cervical radiological parameters assessed included (1) vertebral cross-sectional area (CSA), (2) wedge angle (WA), (3) anterior vertebral height (AH), (4) posterior vertebral height (PH), and (5) Hounsfield unit (HU) values. Statistical methods included paired t-test, ANOVA test, and chi-square test. Independent samples t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare the differences between two groups according to the results of normal distribution test. A total of 123 patients, evenly distributed among three groups, were included and were well matched in terms of demographic characteristics. The likelihood of vertebral body collapse (VBC) was notably higher in the ACDF group (41.5%) compared with the Type I (17.9%) and Type II (8.9%) groups (p < 0.01). Following surgery, both at 3 and 6 months, the ACDF group demonstrated higher VAS neck scores and NDI scores compared with the Type I and Type II groups (p < 0.01). Additionally, the WA and AH values of the upper and lower adjacent OVB were consistently lower in the ACDF group than in the Type I and Type II groups at 6 and 12 months and at the final follow-up (p < 0.01). Notably, in the Nonreplacement Segment Group, WA significantly decreased at 12 months postoperatively and at the final follow-up compared with the Replacement Segment Group (p < 0.01). Three levels of HS appear to reduce stress concentrations and alleviate morphological changes in OVB. The occurrence of more VBC patients with OVB was associated with the use of Zero-P or Zero-P VA implants.

Five-year Follow-up of a Prospective Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Trial Evaluating a PEEK-on-Ceramic Cervical Disc Replacement.

Prospective trial comparing the investigation group to propensity matched historic control group. To evaluate 5-year results of single-level PEEK-on-ceramic cervical total disc replacement (TDR) compared to a propensity matched anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) control group. Cervical TDR has gained acceptance as treatment for symptomatic disc degeneration. The design and materials used in these devices continue to evolve. Data were collected in the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial for the PEEK-on-ceramic Simplify(®) Cervical Artificial Disc (n=150) with comparison to a propensity matched ACDF control group (n=117). All patients were treated for single-level cervical disc degeneration with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Clinical outcome was based on composite clinical success (CCS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing pain, re-operations, and satisfaction. Radiographic measures included segmental range of motion (ROM), disc space height, and heterotopic ossification (HO). Evaluations were performed pre-operatively and post-operatively within 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12 months, and annually thereafter. At 5-year follow-up, CCS was significantly greater with TDR than ACDF (91.1% vs. 74.6%; P<0.01). In the TDR group, the mean NDI score was 63.3 pre-operatively, reduced significantly to 23.1 at 6 weeks and remained below 20 throughout 5-year follow-up. In the ACDF group, the mean pre-operative NDI score was 62.4, decreasing to 33.7 at 6 weeks, and ranged from 25.9 to 21.5 throughout follow-up. Mean NDI scores were significantly lower in TDR group at all post-operative points (P<0.05). Mean TDR ROM was 7.3o pre-operatively and 10.1o at 5 years. Bridging HO occurred in 9%. With TDR, there were 6 re-operations (4.0%) vs. 11 (9.4%) with ACDF (P>0.40). PEEK-on-ceramic TDR produced significantly improved outcomes maintained throughout 5-year follow-up, were similar or superior to ACDF, supporting TDR in appropriately selected patients.

Revisiting the Posterior Approach for Cervical Radiculopathy Utilizing Endoscopic Techniques: A Favorable Short-Term Outcome and Cost Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Cervical radiculopathy is a spine ailment frequently requiring surgical decompression via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior foraminotomy/discectomy. While endoscopic posterior foraminotomy/discectomy is gaining popularity, its financial impact remains understudied despite equivalent randomized long-term outcomes to ACDF. In a cohort of patients undergoing ACDF vs endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy, we sought to compare the total cost of the surgical episode while confirming an equivalent safety profile and perioperative outcomes. A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy undergoing ACDF or endoscopic cervical foraminotomy between 2018 and 2023 was undertaken. Primary outcomes included the total cost of care for the initial surgical episode (not charges or reimbursement). Perioperative variables and neurological recovery were recorded. Multivariable analysis tested age, body mass index, race, gender, insurance type, operative time, and length of stay. A total of 38 ACDF and 17 endoscopic foraminotomy/discectomy operations were performed. All patients underwent single-level surgery except for 2 two-level endoscopic decompressions. No differences were found in baseline characteristics and symptom length except for younger age (46.8 ± 9.4 vs 57.6 ± 10.3, P = 0.002) and more smokers (18.4% vs 11.8%, P = 0.043) in the ACDF group. Actual hospital costs for the episode of surgical care were markedly higher in the ACDF cohort (mean ±95% CI; $27,782 ± $2011 vs $10,103 ± $720, P < 0.001) driven by the ACDF approach (β = $17,723, P < 0.001) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, ACDF was never cost-efficient compared with endoscopic foraminotomy, and endoscopic failure rates of 64% were required for break-even cost. ACDF was associated with significantly longer operative time (167.7 ± 22.0 vs 142.7 ± 27.4 minutes, P < 0.001) and length of stay (1.1 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2 days, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found regarding 90-day neurological improvement, readmission, reoperation, or complications. Compared with patients treated with a single-level ACDF for unilateral cervical radiculopathy, endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy can achieve a similar safety profile, pain relief, and neurological recovery at considerably less cost. These findings may help patients and surgeons revisit offering the posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy utilizing endoscopic techniques. Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy offers comparable safety, pain relief, and neurological recovery to traditional methods but at a significantly lower cost.

Comparison of fusion, arthroplasty and hybrid surgery outcomes in patients with two-level cervical disc disease.

The study aims to explore the management of two-level cervical disc disease and to compare outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), and hybrid surgery (HS). Between December 2011 and December 2021, a total of 120 patients (76 males, 44 females; mean age: 44.8±8.1 years; range, 18 to 68 years) who were diagnosed as two-level cervical disc disease and underwent anterior cervical surgery were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were randomly divided into three groups as ACDF, CDA, and HS each consisting of 40 patients. The Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), clinical and radiological findings, and range of motion (ROM) data were evaluated. All of the groups showed a significant improvement according to clinical and radiological outcomes (p=0.01). The mean follow-up was 27.5±6.1 months for ACDF, 20.0±4.7 months for CDA, and 21.1±5.0 months for HS, showing consistency in monitoring post-surgery outcomes. The mean postoperative NDI scores were 13.4±5.6, 14.8±5.2 and 15.0±5.5 in the ACDF, CDA and HS groups, respectively (p=0.056). The mean postoperative ROM values were 20.82±5.66, 32.45±11.21 and 27.18±10.89, respectively (p=0.045). All three surgical techniques, ACDF, CDA, and HS, are safe and successful in the treatment of two-level cervical disc disease. However, HS and CDA may be more preferable over ACDF attributed to their motion-preserving benefits and effectively combining fusion and motion preservation techniques, with comparable clinical and radiological outcomes.

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of patients with single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

The aim of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level unilateral cervical radiculopathy (SLUCR). We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with SLUCR in two hospitals from February 2020 to February 2022, including the MI-PCF group (n=40) and the ACDF group (n=41). The differences in neck and shoulder pain, visual analog score (VAS), upper limb radiating pain (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) were compared. Operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, and complications were also compared between the two groups. The degree of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 day postoperatively was better in the ACDF group than in the MI-PCF group (p<0.05), while there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of neck and shoulder pain relief at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the relief of upper limb radiating pain and the decrease of NDI scores between the two groups at 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (p>0.05). The patients in MI-PCF group had shorter operative time, less bleeding, and shorter hospital stay, which were statistically different (p<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the complication rate between the two groups, (p>0.05). The clinical efficacy and safety of MI-PCF and ACDF in the treatment of SLUCR are satisfactory, meanwhile, MI-PCF has shorter operative time, less bleeding and shorter hospital stay than ACDF, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for Two-Level Cervical Disc Degenerative Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are both considered to be efficacious surgical procedures for treating cervical spondylosis in patients with or without compression myelopathy. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these procedures for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD) at two contiguous levels. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched up to 1 May 2023. Studies comparing the outcomes between CDA and ACDF in patients with two-level cervical DDD were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were surgical success rates and secondary surgery rates. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, as well as the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for the severity of cervical compression myelopathy and complication rates. Results: In total, eight studies (two RCTs, four retrospective studies, and two prospective studies) with a total of 1155 patients (CDA: 598; ACDF: 557) were included. Pooled results revealed that CDA was associated with a significantly higher overall success rate (OR, 2.710, 95% CI: 1.949-3.770) and lower secondary surgery rate (OR, 0.254, 95% CI: 0.169-0.382) compared to ACDF. In addition, complication rates were significantly lower in the CDA group than in the ACDF group (OR, 0.548, 95% CI: 0.326 to 0.919). CDA was also associated with significantly greater improvements in neck pain VAS than ACDF. No significant differences were found in improvements in the arm VAS, NDI, and JOA scores between the two procedures. Conclusions: CDA may provide better postoperative outcomes for surgical success, secondary surgery, pain reduction, and postoperative complications than ACDF for treating patients with two-level cervical DDD.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and Cervical Disc Replacement for Cervical Disc Disease.

To compare the radiological outcome and development of heterotopic ossification (HO) following single-segment anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc replacement (CDR) for cervical disc herniation and evaluate their impact on surgical success. Descriptive comparative study. Place and Duration of the Study: Neurosurgery Department at Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkiye, between January 2020 and June 2022. Patients aged 18-70 years with radicular neck pain unresponsive to conventional medical treatment and an MRI-confirmed diagnosis were included. Patients with osteoporosis (OP) were excluded. Patients were randomised into two treatment groups (ACDF and CDR) and stratified by age and symptom severity. Radiographic assessments and HO classification according to McAfee were performed. Among the included patients, 56 underwent ACDF and 45 underwent CDR. The mean patient age was 48.29 ± 9.530 and 41.84 ± 7.239 years in the ACDF and CDR groups, respectively (p <0.001). The postoperative disc height increased in both groups. The T1 slope was significantly higher preoperatively and in the early postoperative period in the CDR group than in the ACDF group (p = 0.001). HO was graded as 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 28 (27.7%), 6 (5.9%), 7 (6.9%), and 4 (3%) patients, respectively. ACDF and CDR provided similar improvements in radiological measurements and pain relief. Although both procedures significantly enhanced the patient's quality of life and disability scores, HO was more prevalent following CDR during long-term follow-up. Cervical disc replacement, Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, Spinal surgery techniques, Heterotopic ossification.

Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical spinal stenosis: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the standard procedure for the treatment of cervical spinal stenosis (CSS), but complications such as adjacent segment degeneration can seriously affect the long-term efficacy. Currently, posterior endoscopic surgery has been increasingly used in the clinical treatment of CSS. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of single-segment CSS patients who underwent full endoscopic laminotomy decompression or ACDF. 138 CSS patients who met the inclusion criteria from June 2018 to August 2020 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into endoscopic and ACDF groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the imbalanced confounding variables between the groups. Then, perioperative data were recorded and clinical outcomes were compared, including functional scores and imaging data. Functional scores included Visual Analog Scale of Arms (A-VAS) and Neck pain (N-VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and imaging data included Disc Height Index (DHI), Cervical range of motion (ROM), and Ratio of grey scale (RVG). After PSM, 84 patients were included in the study and followed for 24-30months. The endoscopic group was significantly superior to the ACDF group in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and hospital stay (P < 0.001). Postoperative N-VAS, A-VAS, JOA, and NDI were significantly improved in both groups compared with the preoperative period (P < 0.001), and the endoscopic group showed better improvement at 7days postoperatively (P < 0.05). The ROM changes of adjacent segments were significantly larger in the ACDF group at 12months postoperatively and at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The RVG of adjacent segments showed a decreasing trend, and the decrease was more marked in the ACDF group at last follow-up (P < 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the endoscopic group and ACDF group were 90.48% and 88.10%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression is demonstrated to be an efficacious alternative technique to traditional ACDF for the treatment of single-segment CSS, with the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, and less impact on cervical spine kinematics and adjacent segmental degeneration.

Comparison of Cervical Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in Patients with Symptomatic Cervical Disc Herniation.

Background: We aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of cervical biportal endoscopic spine surgery (C-BESS) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with symptomatic cervical disc herniation. Methods: This study was a retrospective chart review of four-year clinical data involving 318 cases of symptomatic cervical disc herniation, with 156 patients undergoing the ACDF and 162 patients receiving the C-BESS. Preoperative and postoperative one-year data were collected. Results: The numeric rating scale and neck disability index showed statistically significant improvement for both ACDF and C-BESS groups. While showing a longer operation time and more blood loss during surgery compared to the ACDF group, the C-BESS group demonstrated a learning effect as the surgeon's proficiency increased with more cases. There was no significant difference in the postoperative length of hospitalization between the two methods. The subgroup with predominant arm pain revealed the statistical difference in arm pain intensity changes between the two groups (p < 0.001). The rates of complication were 2.6% for the ACDF group and 1.9% for the C-BESS group. Conclusions: C-BESS and ACDF are effective surgical treatments for patients with symptomatic single-level cervical disc herniation in relieving relevant pain intensities and pain-related disabilities.

Sagittal sequence and clinical efficacy of cervical disc replacement and hybrid surgery in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a retrospective study.

Hybrid surgery (HS) combines anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with cervical disc replacement (CDR) is gradually being more frequently implemented, but there are few studies reporting the safety and effectiveness of hybrid surgery in three levels cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The clinical and radiographic data of patients with three-segment cervical spondylosis, who underwent CDR, ACDF and HS in our hospital from February 2007 to February 2013 were analyzed. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy post surgery. Cervical spine x-rays were conducted to assess ROM, CL, T1S and relevant outcomes. A total of 94 patients were included in the study: 26 in the CDR group, 13 in the HS1 group, 31 in the HS2 group, and 24 in the ACDF group. Most patients in the CDR group were younger. There was no difference in the follow-up duration, blood loss volume or surgery time (P > 0.05). Four groups reported improvements in JOA and NDI scores compared to baseline. There was no significant difference in the final JOA, final NDI or recovery rate among the 4 groups. The final ROM was smaller in the ACDF group than in the other 3 groups. There was no difference among the four groups in the final UROM, final LROM or their changes. There was no difference in the final T1S, final SVA or their change among the four groups. All groups showed similar changes in CL and T1S-CL. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes of ACDF, CDR, or hybrid surgery. CDR can better preserve the mobility of the cervical spine. Neither CDR nor hybrid surgery was significantly advantageous over ACDF in restoring the sagittal sequence in patients with three-level CSM.

Comparison of efficacy between endoscope-assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and open ACDF in the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic myelopathy

BackgroundIn this study, we compared the clinical efficacy of endoscope-assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with open ACDF in the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic myelopathy.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 52 patients with single-segment cervical spondylotic myelopathy between June 2021 and February 2022, including 33 males and 19 females, with a mean age of 58.42 ± 9.26) years. Among them, 28 patients were treated with endoscope-assisted ACDF (Group A), including 2 cases of C4/5 segment, 16 cases of C5/6 segment, and 10 cases of C6/7 segment; 24 patients were treated with open ACDF (Group B), including 4 cases of C4/5 segment, 11 cases of C5/6 segment, and 9 cases of C6/7 segment. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were used for clinical evaluation during the follow-up in the 1st month and 3rd month after surgery, and at the final follow-up.ResultsThe 52 patients were followed up on average for 13.04 months (12–17 months). The operation time in Group A and Group B was (105.18 + 8.66) minutes and (81.88 + 6.05) minutes, the intraoperative blood loss was (84.29 + 13.45) mL and (112.92 + 17.81) mL, and the hospital stay was (6.75 + 1.29) days and (7.63 + 1.41) days, respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The VAS and JOA scores in the 1st month and the 3rd month after surgery and the last follow-up significantly improved in both groups compared with those before surgery (P < 0.05). The VAS and JOA scores of Group A in the 1st month, 3rd month after surgery, and the last follow-up were better than those in Group B (P < 0.05). The complication rate in Group A was 7% (2/28), which was not significantly different from the 17% (4/24) in Group B (P > 0.05).ConclusionBoth endoscope-assisted ACDF and open ACDF can achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy in the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Although the operation time of endoscope-assisted ACDF is prolonged, it has the advantages of clear vision, thorough decompression, less blood loss, and reduced risk of nerve damage, and is worthy of clinical promotion and application.

A comparative and prospective study of surgical outcomes of cervical artificial disc to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease of cervical spine in a tertiary care center of Eastern India

Background: Cervical disc degeneration is known to be a primary cause of neck pain and neurologic symptoms and can cause significant morbidity. Degeneration can be related to radiculopathy or myelopathy due to compression of spinal nerves and/or spinal cord. Disc pathology may manifest clinically as localized and radicular pain, myelopathy, and spinal joint instability. If severe, such as in degenerative disc disease, infections, and trauma, surgical methods are indicated. Some studies reported that compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical artificial disc (CAD) could provide better neurological outcomes and reduce the rate of adjacent segment degeneration, whereas other studies reported no difference between the two procedures. Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes of CAD to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in cervical spine. Materials and Methods: It was a comparative study with prospective design conducted among 40 symptomatic cervical disc degenerative disease patients (20 patients undergoing CAD and the remaining 20 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion) at the Department of Neurosurgery, Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, 1PGMER and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, from January 2021 to December 2022. Respective surgical procedures were done. All patients were required to return for follow-up. Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed at 1 month, 3 months, 1 year, postoperatively, and last follow-up (more than 18 months). Clinical effectiveness was evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (17 points system, 1994 revised edition), and neck disability index (NDI) score. Results: Improvement in NDI, VAS, and JOA index was found to be more in CAD as compared to ACDF group with a statistically significant difference as P&lt;0.05. Subsequent surgical intervention was reported among four subjects, out of which one belonged to the CAD group while the rest three to ACDF. Overall success was found to be more in the CAD group (75%) as compared to the ACDF group (55%), though no significant difference was revealed as P&gt;0.05. Conclusion: The findings of the present study support the superior longevity and better outcome of CDA, as compared with ACDF, with regard to need for subsequent surgical intervention and also support better improvement in symptoms in subsequent follow-up in patients undergoing CDA as compared to ACDF despite having comparable mean operative time and blood loss.

FORAMINOTOMY VERSUS ACDF FOR PROXIMAL FORAMINAL STENOSIS

AbstractObjectivesThere is still controversy in the literature over whether Cervical Foraminotomy or Anterior Cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is best for treating cervical Radiculopathy. Numerous studies have focused on the respective complication rates of these procedures and outcome measures with a lack of due consideration to preoperative MRI findings. Proximal foraminal stenosis can theoretically be accessed via either approach. We aimed to investigate whether patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) favoured one approach over the other in patients with proximal foraminal stenosis.MethodsA single centre retrospective review of patients undergoing either ACDF or Cervical foraminotomy over the period 2012 to 2022. VAS, Neck disability index (NDI), EQ5DL and Patient Satisfaction on a Five Point Likert scale were obtained. Patients who had both an ACDF and a Foraminotomy were excluded. Axial MRI images were analysed and the location of the worst clinically relevant disc herniation stratified as follows: Central (1), Paracentral (2) and Foraminal (3). Correlations and average PROMs were analysed in SPSS.ResultsPROMs scores were available for 33 ACDF patients and 37 Foraminotomy patients. Average surgery time in ACDF group was 167 minutes while Foraminotomy 142 minutes. Average Length of hospital stay was 6.24 days in the Foraminotomy group and 3.54 days in the ACDF group. 18 patients were excluded due to having both surgeries (2 of which developed CSF leaks postoperatively). Of the included patients there were no postoperative complications. 13 patients in the ACDF had Central or Paracentral stenosis in addition to proximal Foraminal stenosis, 3 patients in the Foraminotomy group had some significant Paracentral herniation just before the Proximal foramen. The majority of patients in both groups had pure proximal Foraminal stenosis (N= 17 (ACDF), 20 (Foraminotomy). The results showed no significant difference in PROMs between patients who received an ACDF or a Foraminotomy for Proximal foraminal stenosis (EQ5DL, NDI, and satisfaction, P= 0.268, 0.253 and 0.327). There was no correlation between location of the stenosis and PROM scores in either group.ConclusionsOur data suggest that Proximal foraminal stenosis can be effectively addressed by either an anterior ACDF or a Foraminotomy with no difference in complication rates. Foraminotomy has the benefit of no implant cost but longer hospital stay.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Prospective, multicenter clinical trial comparing the M6-C compressible cervical disc with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy: 5-year results of an FDA investigational device exemption study

BACKGROUND CONTEXTVarious total disc replacement (TDR) designs have been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with favorable short and long-term outcomes in FDA-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) trials. The unique design of M6-C, with a compressible viscoelastic nuclear core and an annular structure, has previously demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes through 24 months. PURPOSETo evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the M6-C compressible artificial cervical disc and compare to ACDF at 5 years. STUDY DESIGNProspective, multicenter, concurrently and historically controlled, FDA-approved IDE clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLESubjects with one-level symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy were enrolled and received M6-C (n=160) or ACDF (n=189) treatment as part of the IDE study. Safety outcomes were evaluated at 5 years for all subjects. The primary effectiveness endpoint was available at 5 years for 113 M6-C subjects and 106 ACDF controls. OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary endpoint of this analysis was composite clinical success (CCS) at 60 months. Secondary endpoints were function and pain (neck disability index, VAS), physical quality of life (SF-36, SF-12), safety, neurologic, and radiographic assessments. METHODSPropensity score subclassification was used to control for selection bias and match baseline covariates of the control group to the M6-C subjects. Sixty-month CCS rates were estimated for each treatment group using a generalized linear model controlling for propensity score. RESULTSAt 5 years postoperatively, the M6-C treatment resulted in 82.3% CCS while the ACDF group showed 67.0% CCS (superiority p=.013). Secondary endpoints indicated that significantly more M6-C subjects achieved VAS neck and arm pain improvements and showed maintained or improved physical functioning on quality-of-life measures compared to baseline assessments. The M6-C group-maintained flexion-extension motion, with significantly greater increases from baseline disc height and disc angle than observed in the control group. The rates of M6-C subsequent surgical interventions (SSI; 3.1%) and definitely device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (SAE failure; 3.1%) were similar to ACDF rates (SSI=5.3%, SAE failure=4.8%; p>.05 for both). CONCLUSIONSSubjects treated with the M6-C artificial disc demonstrated superior 5-year achievement of clinical success when compared to ACDF controls. In addition, significantly more subjects in the M6-C group showed improved pain and physical functioning scores than observed in ACDF subjects, with no difference in reoperation rates or safety outcomes.

Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Cervical myelopathy (CM) describes the compressive cervical spinal cord state, often accompanied by serious clinical condition, by herniated disc or hypertrophied spurs or ligament. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been frequently employed as conventional surgical solution for this CM despite its inherent biomechanical handicap. Alternatively, an artificial disc replacement (ADR) preserves cervical motion while still decompressing the spinal canal and neural foramen. This analysis elaborated to clarify the potential benefits of ADR application to CM over ACDF from the conglomerated results of the past references. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane review, and KMbase databases from the studies published until March 2023. Six studies (3 randomized controlled study [RCTs] and 3 non-RCTs) were included in a qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Data were extracted and analyzed using a random effects model to obtain effect size and its statistical significance. Quality assessment and evidence level were established in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. Among 6 studies, 2 studies showed that ADR group achieved significantly better clinical improvement than the ACDF group, while the rest 4 studies revealed no significant difference. A meta-analysis showed better clinical outcomes with or without statistical significance. The level of evidence was low because of inconsistency and imprecision. ADR was superior or at least, not inferior to ACDF in terms of functional recovery. However, its application to the CM patients is merely empowered with weak strength due to low level of evidence.

Comparison between Three-Dimensional Printed Titanium and PEEK Cages for Cervical and Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Controlled Trial.

The three-dimensional printing titanium (3DPT) cage with excellent biomechanical properties and osseointegration capabilities has been initially used in spinal fusion, while the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage, a bioinert material device, has been a widely used for decades with relatively excellent clinical outcomes. This study was performed to investigate the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of 3DPT cage versus PEEK cage in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). This prospective controlled trial, from December 2019 to June 2022, included patients undergoing ACDF and TLIF with 3DPT cages and compared them to patients using PEEK cages for treating spinal degenerative disorders. The outcome measures included radiographic parameters (intervertebral height [IH], subsidence, fusion status, and bone-cage interface contact) and clinical outcomes (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA], Neck Disability Index [NDI], Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Short Form 12-Item Survey [SF-12], Visual Analog Scale [VAS], and Odom's criteria). Student's independent samples t test and Pearson's chi-square test were used to compare the outcome measures between the two groups before surgery and at 1 week, 3 and 6 months after surgery. For the patients undergoing ACDF, the 3DPT (18 patients/[26 segments]) and PEEK groups (18 patients/[26 segments]) had similar fusion rates at 3 months and 6 months follow-up (3 months: 96.2% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.182; 6 months: 100% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.225). The subsidence in the 3DPT group was significantly lower than that in the PEEK group (3 months: 0.4 ± 0.2 mm vs. 0.9 ± 0.7 mm p = 0.004; 6 months: 0.7 ± 0.3 mm vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 mm, p < 0.001). 3DPT and PEEK cage all achieved sufficient contact with the cervical endplates. For the patients undergoing TLIF, the 3DPT (20 patients/[26 segments]) and PEEK groups (20 patients/[24 segments]) had no statistical difference in fusion rate (3 months: 84.6% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.059; 6 months: 92.3% vs. 75%, p = 0.132). The subsidence was lower than that in the PEEK group without significantly difference (3 months: 0.9 ± 0.7 mm vs.1.2 ± 0.9 mm p = 0.136; 6 months: 1.6 ± 1.0 mm vs. 2.0 ± 1.0 mm, p = 0.200). At the 3-month follow-up, the bone-cage interface contact of the 3DPT cage was significantly better than that of the PEEK cage (poor contact: 15.4% vs. 75%, p < 0.001). The values of UAR were higher in the 3DPT group than in the PEEK group during the follow-up in cervical and lumbar fusion, there were more statistical differences in lumbar fusion. There were no significant differences in the clinical assessment between 3DPT or PEEK cage in spinal fusion. The 3DPT cage and PEEK cage can achieve excellent clinical outcomes in cervical and lumbar fusion. The 3DPT cage has advantage in fusion quality, subsidence severity, and bone-cage interface contact than PEEK cage.

Mid-term and Long-term Outcomes After Total Cervical Disk Arthroplasty Compared With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to compare mid-term to long-term outcomes of cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disk disease. After ACDF to treat symptomatic cervical degenerative disk disease, the loss of motion at the index level due to fusion may accelerate adjacent-level disk degeneration. CDA was developed to preserve motion and reduce the risk of adjacent segment degeneration. Early-term to mid-term clinical outcomes from RCTs suggest noninferiority of CDA compared with ACDF, but it remains unclear whether CDA yields better mid-term to long-term outcomes than ACDF. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs with at least 60 months of follow-up. The risk ratio or standardized mean difference (and 95% CIs) were calculated for dichotomous or continuous variables, respectively. Eighteen reports of 14 RCTs published in 2014-2023 were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that the CDA group had a significantly greater improvement in neurological success and Neck Disability Index than the ACDF group. The ACDF group exhibited a significantly better improvement in the Short Form-36 Health Survey Physical Component Summary than the CDA group. Radiographic adjacent segment degeneration was significantly lower in the CDA group at 60- and 84-month follow-ups; at 120-month follow-up, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Although the overall rate of secondary surgical procedures was significantly lower in the CDA group, we did not observe any significant difference at 60-month follow-up between the CDA and ACDF group and appreciated statistically significant lower rates of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration, and symptomatic adjacent-level disease requiring surgery at 84-month and 108- to 120-month follow-up. The rate of adverse events and the neck and arm pain scores in the CDA group were not significantly different from those of the ACDF group. In this meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with 5- to 10-year follow-up data, CDA resulted in significantly better neurological success and Neck Disability Index scores and lower rates of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration, secondary surgical procedures, and symptomatic adjacent-level disease requiring surgery than ACDF. ACDF resulted in improved Short Form-36 Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores. However, the CDA and ACDF groups did not exhibit significant differences in overall changes in neck and arm pain scores or rates of adverse events.

Cervical disc arthroplasty for magnetic resonance-evident cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparison with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a standard surgical approach for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) caused by disc herniations. Although cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become, in the past decade, a viable alternative to ACDF in selected patients, the differences among patients with CSM treated with CDA and ACDF remain elusive. The effectiveness of motion preservation devices in CSM is also unclear. Adult patients who underwent 1- or 2-level CDA or ACDF between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients whose preoperative T2-weighted MRI demonstrated increased intramedullary signal intensity (IISI) were included and analyzed for the following: comparison of the length of IISI on pre- and postoperative MR images as well as range of motion (ROM) at the indexed levels between the CDA and ACDF groups. Measurement for clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) of the arm and neck, the Neck Disability Index, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. Perioperative clinical data were also compared between the two groups. A total of 122 patients were allocated to the CDA group and 108 to the ACDF group, with mean follow-ups of 46.6 and 39.0 months, respectively. Patients in the CDA group were younger than those in the ACDF group (47.64 ± 12.40 vs 61.73 ± 12.25 years, p < 0.001) (mean ± SD). The ACDF group had more 2-level surgery compared to the CDA group (p = 0.002). Both groups had significant regression of IISI on postoperative MRI compared to that of preoperative imaging (CDA: 1.23 ± 0.84 to 0.28 ± 0.39 cm; ACDF: 1.07 ± 0.60 to 0.37 ± 0.42 cm; both p < 0.001). The decrease in the length of IISI was similar between the two groups (p = 0.058). The postoperative ROM was well preserved in the CDA group (superior to ACDF, which yielded minimal ROM postoperatively). Both the CDA and ACDF groups demonstrated improvement in Neck Disability Index and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at 24 months postoperatively. The CDA group had significant improvements on VAS scores, whereas the improvement did not reach significance for the ACDF group at 24 months postoperatively. Significant shortening of IISI on T2-weighted MRI was demonstrated after both CDA and ACDF. At 24 months postoperatively, all clinical outcomes demonstrated improvement after both strategies, except that the VAS score was not significantly improved for ACDF. Therefore, CDA is a safe and effective option for patients with MR-evident CSM.

20-year Clinical Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial. To compare clinical outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) at 20 years. Concern for adjacent level disease after ACDF prompted development of CDA. 47 patients with single level cervical radiculopathy were randomized to either BRYAN CDA or ACDF for an FDA IDE trial. At 20 years, patient reported outcomes, including visual analog scales (VAS) for neck and arm pain, neck disability index (NDI), and reoperation rates were analyzed. Follow-up rate was 91.3%. Both groups showed significantly better NDI, VAS arm pain and VAS neck pain scores at 20 years versus preoperative scores. Comparing CDA versus ACDF, there was no difference at 20 years in mean scores for NDI [11.1 (SD 14.1) vs. 19.9 (SD 17.2), P=0.087], mean VAS arm pain [0.9 (SD 2.4) vs. 2.3 (SD 2.8), P=0.095], or mean VAS neck pain [1.2 (SD 2.5) vs. 2.9 (3.3), P=0.073]. There was a significant difference between CDA versus ACDF groups in the change in VAS neck pain score between 10 and 20 years [respectively, -0.4 (SD 2.5) vs. 1.5 (SD 2.5), P=0.030]. Reoperations were reported in 41.7% of ACDF patients and 10.0% of CDA patients (P=0.039). Both CDA and ACDF are effective in treating cervical radiculopathy with sustained improvement in NDI, VAS neck and VAS arm pain at 20 years. CDA demonstrates lower reoperation rates than ACDF. There were no failures of the arthroplasty device requiring reoperation at the index level. Symptomatic non-union rate of ACDF was 4.2% at 20 years. Despite a higher reoperation rate in the CDA group versus ACDF group, there was no difference in the 20-year NDI, VAS Neck and VAS arm pain scores.