• World Neurosurg · May 2018

    Comparative Study

    Clinical and Radiologic Features of 3 Reconstructive Procedures for the Surgical Management of Patients with Bilevel Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease at a Minimum Follow-Up Period of 5 Years: A Comparative Study.

    • Kai-Feng Wang, Shuo Duan, Zhen-Qi Zhu, Hai-Ying Liu, Chen-Jun Liu, and Shuai Xu.
    • Department of Spine Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
    • World Neurosurg. 2018 May 1; 113: e70-e76.

    ObjectiveTo assess the mid-long-term follow-up of the safety and efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical artificial disc replacement (CADR) and hybrid surgery (HS) for bilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (cDDD).Methods77 patients who underwent ACDF, HS, and CADR were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical effects were evaluated based on Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores and the Odom criteria. Radiographic outcomes were evaluated, including cervical range of motion (ROM), ROM in the operative and adjacent segments, incidence of degeneration in the adjacent segments (ASD), and heterotopic ossification (HO).ResultsNDI, VAS, and JOA scores significantly improved in all patients after surgery without significant differences between groups. The excellent-to-good ratio in the Odom scale was 28/30 for the HS group, 30/33 for the ACDF group, and 13/14 for the CADR group. No significant differences in clinical outcomes or complication were found between groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the HS and CADR groups had less decreased ROM in the cervical and operative segments and less compensatory ROM in adjacent segments (P < 0.05). By contrast, the ACDF group had decreased ROM in the cervical and operative segments and significantly increased ROM in adjacent segments (P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of ASD was higher in the ACDF group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). HO was found in 10 patients (33.3%) in the HS group and 5 patients (35.7%) in the CADR group.ConclusionHS was superior to ACDF with regard to equivalent clinical outcomes in the mid-long-term follow-up. Furthermore, HS was superior in the maintenance of ROM and had less impact on its adjacent segments. The efficacy of HS is similar to that of CADR.Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…