• Toon F M Boselie, Paul C Willems, Henk van Mameren, Rob A de Bie, Edward C Benzel, and Henk van Santbrink.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. T.Boselie@MUMC.nl
• Spine. 2013 Aug 1; 38 (17): E1096-107.

Study DesignA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).ObjectiveTo assess the effects of arthroplasty versus fusion in the treatment of radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both, due to single-level cervical degenerative disc disease.Summary Of Background DataThere is ongoing debate about whether fusion or arthroplasty is superior in the treatment of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Mainly because the intended advantage of arthroplasty compared with fusion, prevention of symptoms due to adjacent segment degeneration in the long term, is not confirmed yet. Until sufficient long-term results become available, it is important to know whether results of 1 of the 2 treatments are superior to the other in the first 1 to 2 years.MethodsWe searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials. We included randomized controlled trials that directly compared any type of cervical fusion with any type of cervical arthroplasty, with at least 1 year of follow-up. Study selection was performed independently by 3 review authors, and "risk of bias" assessment and data extraction were independently performed by 2 review authors. In case of missing data, we contacted the study authors or the study sponsor. We assessed the quality of evidence.ResultsNine studies (2400 participants) were included in this review; 5 of these studies had a low risk of bias. Results for the arthroplasty group were better than the fusion group for all primary comparisons, often statistically significant. For none of the primary outcomes was a clinically relevant difference in effect size shown. Quality of the evidence was low to moderate.ConclusionThere is low to moderate quality evidence that results are consistently in favor of arthroplasty, often statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes.Level Of Evidence1.

13 keywords...

hide…