Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery

Abstract

Study design: Systematic review.

Clinical questions: What is the effectiveness of multilevel cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) compared with multilevel fusion with respect to pain and functional outcomes, and are the two procedures comparable in terms of safety? What is the effectiveness of multilevel C-ADR compared with single-level C-ADR with respect to pain and functional outcomes, and are the two procedures comparable in terms of safety?

Methods: A systematic review was undertaken for articles published up to October 2011. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing multilevel C-ADR with multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or comparing multilevel C-ADR with single-level C-ADR. Studies which compared these procedures in the lumbar or thoracic spine or that reported alignment outcomes only were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Results: Two studies compared multilevel C-ADR with multilevel ACDF. While both reported improved Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scores after C-ADR compared with ACDF, only one study reported statistically significant results. Seven studies compared single-level C-ADR with multilevel C-ADR. Results were similar in terms of overall success, NDI and SF-36 scores, and patient satisfaction. There is discrepant information regarding rates of heterotopic ossification; dysphagia rate may be higher in multilevel C-ADR.

Conclusions: The literature suggests that outcomes are at least similar for multilevel C-ADR and ACDF and may favor C-ADR. Future studies are necessary before firm recommendations can be made favoring one treatment strategy. Multilevel C-ADR seems to have similar results to single-level C-ADR but may have higher rates of heterotopic ossification and dysphagia.

• References

• 1 Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L , et al. Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (5) 1347-1351
• 2 Kim HK, Kim MH, Cho DS , et al. Surgical outcome of cervical arthroplasty using bryan(r). J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2009; 46 (6) 532-537
• 3 Goffin J, Loon Jvan, Calenbergh Fvan , et al. A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 12 (3) 261-269
• 4 Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A , et al. Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32 (12) 1337-1344
• 5 Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP , et al. Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (9) 1417-1426
• 6 Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB , et al. Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (2) 218-231
• 7 Coric D, Cassis J, Carew JD , et al. Prospective study of cervical arthroplasty in 98 patients involved in 1 of 3 separate investigational device exemption studies from a single investigational site with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13 (6) 715-721
• 8 Tu TH, Wu JC, Huang WC , et al. Heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc replacement: determination by CT and effects on clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14 (4) 457-465