ArticleBiomedical reports2017
Mid-term efficacy and safety of cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion in cervical spondylosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 7-year.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Pooled it
- Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion without plate (ACDFWP) versus anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) for cervical spondylosis: A meta-analysis and literature review.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2022Review
- Article
- Outcomes After Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Stand-Alone Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy in the treatment of symptomatic cervical spondylosis: A protocol.Medicine · 2020Article
- Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are the most commonly used procedures in cervical spondylosis. However, only a few published studies exist in the literature comparing these two operation types, particularly its mid-term efficacy and safety. Furthermore, in those studies, even large sample trials, when compared, have elicited controversial results, making it inconvenient for clinicians to refer to them. The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages and shortcomings of the two procedures. Articles indexed in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China Biological Medicine and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases, as of March 2016, that met our criteria were searched. A total of 18 trials involving 3,040 patients were included in our final analysis. The most important results drawn from the present analysis were as follows: Insignificant differences were identified in the blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=6.23; 95% confidence intervals (CI), -0.85 to 13.32; P=0.08], surgical time [standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.40; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.82; P=0.06], the time of hospital stay (SMD=0.05; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.37; P=0.77) and the total complications rate [odds ratio (OR)=0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.131; P=0.28] on a comparison of the two operation methods. By contrast, comparing CDA with ACDF, the CDA had higher Short Form survey (SF-36) scores (WMD=1.65; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.69; P=0.002), a larger range of motion in the operation level (SMD=6.53; 95% CI, 3.89 to 9.17; P<0.0001), a higher rate of neurological improvement following the operation (OR=1.80; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.52; P=0.0006), a lower Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of neck pain (WMD= 0.16; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.05; P=0.006) and arm pain (WMD= 0.12; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.01; P=0.04). In addition, in the mid-term following the surgery, CDA had a lower Neck Disability Index (NDI; SMD=0.18; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.07; P=0.001) and a lower reoperation rate of adjacent levels (OR=0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P=0.007) compared with ACDF. Taken together, these results suggested that CDA and ACDF are efficient and safe methods for dealing with cervical spondylosis. However, with respect to certain specific indicators, such as the reoperation rate of adjacent levels following surgery, the former has several advantages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.