Comparison of the long-term outcomes of total arthroplasty and anterior spinal fusion in the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease: a metaanalysis

Byval'tsev V.A.; Stepanov I.A.; Aliev M.A.; Aglakov B.M.; Yusupov B.R.; Konovalov N.A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/neiro201983061100

Close metadata

Introduction

Anterior cervical spinal fusion (ACSF) surgery is the “gold” standard for patients with degenerative disease of cervical intervertebral discs [1, 2]. It is characterized by high subjective satisfaction of patients with treatment and achievement of effective postoperative “closure” of spinal segment in more than 95% of cases [3]. Nevertheless, ACSF surgery results restriction of movements in spinal segment that induces development of degenerative disease of adjacent intervertebral discs and subsequent redo procedures [4, 5].

Currently, total arthroplasty (TA) of intervertebral discs is gaining more and more popularity in various neurosurgical and orthopedic clinics in the world as a modern alternative method of surgical treatment of patients with degenerative spinal diseases [6]. The main purposes of TA of intervertebral disc are complete restoration and maintenance of physiological movements in certain spinal segment that is essential for prevention of degeneration of adjacent discs, pain syndrome and neurological disorders [7, 8]. However, TA of intervertebral discs is also characterized by certain drawbacks. Major adverse events are heterotopic ossification, migration and “subsidence” of installed implant [9].

Long-term outcomes of TA and ACSF for cervical spine degeneration are ambiguous and contradictory. Thus, some authors reported higher clinical efficacy of TA compared with ACSF [10, 11]. On the other hand, various researchers clearly demonstrate similar long-term results of these surgical techniques in patients with cervical spine degeneration [12—14].

The purpose of the study was a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials devoted to comparison of long-term results of TA and ACSF in surgical treatment of degenerative disease of cervical intervertebral discs.

Material and methods

Literature searching and selection strategy

Searching strategy included randomized controlled trials in the Pubmed, EMBASE, ELibrary and Cochrane Library databases published for the period from 2008 to August 2018 and devoted to comparison of long-term results of TA and ACSF in surgical treatment of degenerative disease of cervical intervertebral discs. Two researchers analyzed literature data. Disagreements regarding inclusion of data into meta-analysis were resolved via consensus with the entire team of the authors. The trial was carried out in accordance with international recommendations for systematic reviews and meta-analyzes (PRISMA) [15].

At the first stage, literature searching was carried out using the keywords "cervical disk arthroplasty", "cervical total disk replacement", "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion", "cervical spine degeneration", "cervical intervertebral disс degeneration" for English-speaking systems and «тотальная артропластика шейных межпозвонковых дисков», «тотальное эндопротезирование шейных межпозвонковых дисков», «передний шейный спондилодез», «дегенерация шейного отдела позвоночника», «дегенеративное заболевание шейных межпозвонковых дисков» for the e-Library system. Titles of reports were analyzed in manual fashion regarding their accordance to inclusion criteria. At the second stage, we examined abstracts and excluded publications inappropriate to inclusion criteria. At the third stage, we looked at the full text of the articles for their compliance with inclusion criteria and references for relevant studies (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Searching strategy and selection of data for meta-analysis.

Inclusion criteria

The following compliance criteria were determined in order to compare the effectiveness of two surgical interventions:

(1) accepted trials: randomized clinical trials devoted to long-term results of TA and ACSF in adults with cervical spine degeneration followed by neurological symptoms (radicular neuralgia, radicular neuritis or radiculopathy);

(2) types of surgical interventions: trials comparing TA of cervical intervertebral discs and ACSF using various implants;

(3) outcomes: analysis of long-term clinical and instrumental results of these interventions; regression of neurological symptoms, quality of life associated with Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS score of pain in the cervical spine and upper extremities, incidence of adverse events and degeneration of adjacent spinal segments, incidence of redo surgical interventions;

(4) study design: randomized clinical trials with Jadad score 3 [16] and over and postoperative follow-up at least 48 months.

Research bias risk assessment

Each study included in this meta-analysis was evaluated using the “Study Bias Risk Assessment” option of Review Manager 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark). The following parameters were applied: (1) data sequence generation, (2) research data concealment (3) blinding procedure, (4) incomplete research data, (5) selective presentation of research results and (6) other bias parameters (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Bias risk assessment for each study included in the meta-analysis.

The total estimated bias risks for all studies were divided into “low”, “uncertain” and “high” (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Total bias risks for all studies included in the meta-analysis.

Statistical analysis

Relative risk (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for dichotomous variables. Continuous variables were analyzed considering standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI (random-effect model). I² coefficient was applied to assess between-study heterogeneity. Homogeneous trials were determined by I² coefficient<25%, low heterogeneity – 25—50%, moderate heterogeneity – 50—75%, over 75% — high heterogeneity. Study asymmetry was analyzed using a funnel plot and Egger’s regression-based test. Forest plots were constructed using Review Manager 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark). Differences were significant at p-value ≤0.05.

Results

Literature searching

According to inclusion criteria, the meta-analysis enrolled 9 randomized controlled trials devoted to assessment of long-term postoperative results in 2439 patients with cervical spine degeneration [17–25]. Overall characteristics of studies are shown in the Table.

Major clinical, instrumental and intraoperative data were extracted from all studies included into meta-analysis. Information on the use of various prostheses and cervical spine implants (ProDisc-C, Mobi-C, Bryan, Prestige, PCM Kineflex/C), as well as cages and autologous bone implants for ACSF surgery was shown.

Clinical parameters

Clinical outcomes of TA and ACSF surgery in patients with cervical spine degeneration in long-term period included: (1) regression of neurological symptoms, (2) NDI-associated quality of life, (3) VAS score of pain in cervical spine and (4) upper limbs. Pooled analysis of showed that TA of cervical intervertebral discs was followed by more common regression of neurological symptoms (RR=1.03, 95% CI 1.00 — 1.06, p<0.00001; I²=9%; Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Forest plot of regression of neurological symptoms. Events — number of cases; Total — total number of patients; Weight — weighted effect size; Risk Ratio — relative risk; M-H — Mantel-Haenszel test; Random — random-effect model; 95% CI — 95% confidence interval.

Pooled analysis also confirmed significantly higher NDI-associated quality of life after TA (SMD=-0.34, 95% CI -0.47 — -0.22, p=0.05; I²=9%; Fig. 5)

Fig. 5. Forest plot of NDI-associated quality of life. Mean — mean value; SD — standard deviation; Weight — weighted effect size; Total — total number of patients; Std. Mean Difference — standardized mean difference; Random — random-effect model; 95% CI — 95% confidence interval.

and less VAS score of pain in upper limbs (SMD=-0.17, 95% CI -0.31 — -0.03, p=0.02; I²=0%; Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Forest plot of VAS score of pain syndrome in cervical spine. Mean – mean value; SD — standard deviation; Weight — weighted effect size; Total — total number of patients; Std. Mean Difference — standardized mean difference; Random – random-effect model; 95% CI — 95% confidence interval.

At the same time, there were no significant differences in VAS scores of pain in cervical spine (SMD=-0.13, 95% CI -0.46 — 0.21, p=0.46; I²=78%; Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Forest plot of VAS score of pain syndrome in upper extremities. Mean – mean value; SD — standard deviation; Weight — weighted effect size; Total — total number of patients; Std. Mean Difference — standardized mean difference; Random – random-effect model; 95% CI — 95% confidence interval.

Redo surgery

Incidence of repeated interventions was significantly lower after TA compared with ACSF (RR=0.52, 95% CI 0.37—0.75, p<0.0005; I²=28%; Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Forest plot of repeated surgical interventions. Events — number of cases; Total — total number of patients; Weight — weighted effect size; Risk Ratio — relative risk; M-H — Mantel-Haenszel test; Random — random-effect model; 95% CI — 95% confidence interval.

Incidence of redo surgeries on the operated (OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.27—0.58, p<0.00001; I²=3%; Fig. 8) and adjacent spinal segments (OR=0.43, 95% CI 0.26—0.72, p<0.001; I²=0%; Fig. 8) was also significantly lower after TA compared with ACSF.

Degeneration of adjacent spine segments

TA was characterized by significantly lower incidence of degeneration of overlying adjacent spinal segment (RR=0.56, 95% CI 0.42—0.74, p<0.0001; I²=68%; Fig. 9).

Fig. 9. Forest plot of the incidence of degeneration of adjacent spinal segments. Events — number of cases; Total — total number of patients; Weight — weighted effect size; Risk Ratio — relative risk; M-H — Mantel-Haenszel test; Random — random-effect model; 95% CI — 95% confidence interval

At the same time, we did not obtain significant differences in the incidence of degeneration of underlying segment in both groups (RR=0.56, 95% CI 0.28—1.09, p=0.09; I²=93%; Fig. 9).

Adverse events

Pooled analysis of the incidence of adverse events demonstrated their slight predominance after TA (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.42—0.99, p=0.04; I²=0%; Fig. 10).

Discussion

ACSF surgery is still the "gold" standard of surgical treatment of patients with cervical spine degeneration although TA of intervertebral discs has been actively used in spinal surgery over the past ten years [26, 27]. The secondary role of TA in surgical treatment of patients with cervical spine degeneration is largely determined by the absence of clear data of high clinical efficacy of this procedure in long-term postoperative period [28]. There are a large number of meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy and safety of TA and ACSF surgery in patients with cervical spine degeneration. However, most of these meta-analyses are based on the study of randomized clinical trials with a short-term period of postoperative follow-up. Considering the peculiarities of the methodology of previous studies, we have analyzed controlled randomized trials comparing the long-term results of TA and ACSF surgery in patients with cervical spine degeneration.

We found that long-term outcomes after TA are superior to those after ACSF surgery in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Redo surgery is the most important indicator of clinical and economic effectiveness of any surgical intervention due to its direct impact on the quality of life, additional financial costs for patients and/or state health care system. TA was followed by significantly less incidence of repeated interventions compared with ACSF surgery. Our data are largely consistent with the results of meta-analyses of A. Hu et al. [9] and Y. Wu et al. [11]. However, these researches enrolled randomized clinical trials with small sample size.

Degeneration of adjacent intervertebral discs is one of the common causes of repeated hospitalizations and surgical interventions after ACSF surgery [29]. In contrast to ACSF surgery, TA of the intervertebral discs is associated with normal biomechanics of cervical spine and even distribution of the load between spinal segments [30]. However, there are no clear evidence in favor of reducing the incidence of degeneration of adjacent segments after TA. Pooled analysis clearly demonstrated that TA results significantly less incidence of degeneration of the overlying adjacent spinal segment. On the other hand, incidence of degeneration of the underlying spinal segment was similar after TA and ACSF surgery. It is worth noting that studies comparing incidence of degeneration of adjacent segments were characterized by high heterogeneity. In our opinion, high heterogeneity of these studies was due to various diagnostic criteria for degeneration of adjacent intervertebral discs and the number of operated spinal segments. It is known that degeneration of adjacent segments confirmed by instrumental survey does not significantly correlate with clinical and neurological symptoms [31, 32]. In this regard, prospective randomized trials with large sample size and long-term postoperative follow-up are necessary for more objective assessment and comparison of the incidence of degeneration of adjacent segments after TA and ACSF surgery.

Limitations

There are certain limitations of this meta-analysis. Firstly, meta-analysis enrolled only 9 randomized clinical trials with small sample size that obviously influenced the results of statistical analysis. Secondly, the trials were characterized by certain methodological drawbacks, in particular, the absence and/or violation of the blinding procedure that affected the reliability of the results too. Thirdly, postoperative follow-up period was significantly less after ACSF surgery (p=0.038). This feature directly influenced the results of pooled analysis.

Conclusion

TA is characterized by significantly better clinical efficacy in patients with cervical spine degeneration in long-term postoperative period compared with ACSF surgery. Undoubtedly, further meta-analysis enrolling high-quality randomized clinical trials with long-term postoperative follow-up of patients after TA and ACSF surgery for cervical spine degeneration are required.

Financing

The study did not have financial support.

No conflict of interests to declare.

Authors’ participation:

Byvaltsev V. A. — design and methodology of research, final editing of the manuscript;

Stepanov I. A. — literature review, statistical analysis;

Aliev M. A. — literature review, statistical analysis;

Aglakov B. M. — literature review, statistical analysis;

Yusupov B. R. — literature review, statistical analysis;

Konovalov N. A. — final editing of the manuscript.

Commentary

The article is devoted to analysis of long-term outcomes of surgical treatment of cervical spine degeneration. Considering increased life expectancy of people in developed countries, greater number of patients with degenerative spine diseases is expected. New surgical technologies appear in response to this tendency. First of all, effectiveness of certain technology is determined by postoperative outcomes. The authors performed a meta-analysis of long-term outcomes of surgical treatment of patients with cervical spine degeneration and compared two technologies — total arthroplasty and anterior cervical spinal fusion surgery. A meta-analysis enrolled 9 randomized controlled clinical trials comprising 2439 patients with cervical spine degeneration. Long-term postoperative results were analyzed. The study was carried out in accordance with international recommendations for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). It should be noted that the authors use the Review Manager 5.3 software “Research Bias Risk Assessment” to evaluate each study included in this meta-analysis. The authors showed that total arthroplasty is characterized by significantly better clinical efficacy in patients with cervical spine degeneration in long-term postoperative period. I would like to note that consideration of arthroplasty as a secondary approach, in my opinion, is not entirely correct. The same is true for the term "gold standard". The last decade has clearly shown that medicine is becoming more personalized (“4P medicine”). Today we have the opportunity to choose a treatment strategy considering the goals and individual characteristics of a particular patient. In this context, similar safety of both methods is more important than data on superiority of one method over another. In general, the article is devoted to a relevant issue due to thorough methodology and evidence-based analysis. The report may be recommended for the use in educational programs and lectures as an example of correct approach.

A.G. Nazarenko (Moscow, Russia)

References:

Byvaltsev VA, Sorokovikov VA, Kalinin AA, Belykh EG. Analysis of anterior cervical interbody fusion using plate cage PCB Evolution for a 2 year period. Voprosy neirokhirurgii imeni N.N. Burdenko. 2013;77(1):37-54. (In Russ.)
Suess O, Schomaker M, Cabraja M, Danne M, Kombos T, Hanna M. Empty polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) show slow radiographic fusion that reduces clinical improvement: results from the prospective multicenter PIERCE-PEEK study. Patient Safety in Surgery. 2017;11:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-017-0128-y
Konovalov NA, Nazarenko AG, Asyutin DS, Zelenkov PV, Onoprienko RA, Korolishin VA, Cherkyev IU, Martynova MA, Zakirov BA, Timonin SYu, Kosyrkova AV, Pimenova LF, Pogosyan AL, Batyrov AA. Modern treatments for degenerative disc diseases of the lumbosacral spine. A literature review. Voprosy neirokhirurgii imeni N.N. Burdenko. 2016;80(4):102-108. (In Russ.)
Kim JH, Park JY, Yi S, Kyung HK, Sung UK, Dong KC, Keun SK, Yong EC. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Alters Whole-Spine Sagittal Alignment. Yonsei Medical Journal. 2015;56(4):1060-1070. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.1060
Gushcha AO, Yusupova AR. Evaluation of outcomes of surgical treatment for degenerative diseases of the spine. Hirurgiya pozvonochnika. 2017;14(4):85-94. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2017.4.85-94
Xie L, Liu M, Ding F, Li P, Ma D. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in symptomatic cervical degenerative disc diseases (CDDDs): an updated meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Springer Plus. 2016;5(1):1188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2851-8
Byvaltsev VA, Kalinin AA, Stepanov IA, Pestryakov YuYa, Shepelev VV. Analysis of the results of total cervical disc arthroplasty using a M6-C prosthesis: a multicenter study. Voprosy neirokhirurgii imeni N.N. Burdenko. 2017;81(6):46-55. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/neuro201781546-55
Shangguan L, Ning G-Z, Tang Y, Wang Z, Luo Z-J, Zhou Y. Discover cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in symptomatic cervical disc diseases: A metaanalysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3): e0174822. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174822
Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, Johansen D. Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Eight Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0149312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149312
Maharaj MM, Mobbs RJ, Hogan J, Zhao DF, Rao PJ, Phan K. Anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Spine Surgery. 2015;1(1):72-85. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.09.01
Wu A-M, Xu H, Mullinix KP, Jin H-M, Huang Z-Y, Lv Q-B, Wang S, Xu H-Z, Chi Y-L. Minimum 4-Year Outcomes of Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty Versus Fusion: A Meta-Analysis Based on Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials. Medicine. 2015;94(15):e665. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000665
Yan S-Z, Di J, Shen Y. Adjacent Segment Degeneration Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus the Bryan Cervical Disc Arthroplasty. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research. 2017;23:2692-2700. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.905178
Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang B, Wang Y, Ming L, Wen Y, Wang Y. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical discarthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine. 2012;37(6):433-438. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822699fa
Rumalla K, Smith KA, Arnold PM. Cervical Total Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Reoperation Rates, Complications, and Hospital Resource Utilization in 72688 Patients in the United States. Neurosurgery. 2018;(82)4:441-453. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx289
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and metaanalyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.
Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Orthopedics. 2011;34:889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.10.033
Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, Boltes MO, Nussbaum M, James S. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine. 2012;18(1):36-42. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.SPINE12555
Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW Jr, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine. 2014;21(4):516-528. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.6.SPINE13996
Zhang HX, Shao YD, Chen Y, Hou Y, Cheng L, Si M, Lin N. A prospective, randomised, controlled multicenter study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. International Orthopaedics. 2014;38(12):2533-2541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2497-5
Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, Hisey MS, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Hoffman GA, Gaede SE, Danielson GO, Gordon C, Stone MB. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine. 2015;22(1):15-25. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13953
Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ, Gaede S, Hoffman G, Kim KD, Hisey M, Bae H, Hoffman G, Gaede S. Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cervical Total Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques. 2015;28(4):E237-243. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000185
Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, Delamarter RB, Darden BV 2nd, Kopjar B. ProDisc-C Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Single-Level Symptomatic Cervical Disc Disease: Seven-Year Follow-up of the Prospective Randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2015;97(21):1738-1747. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01186
Luo J, Gong M, Huang S, Yu T, Zou X. Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion metaanalysis of prospective studies. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2015;135(2):155-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2125-2
Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, Reah C, Howell KM, McAfee PC. Long-term Outcomes of the US FDA IDE Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing PCM Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Spine. 2015;40(10):674-683. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000869
Jacobson RE, Granville M, Berti A. Minimally Invasive Anterior Cervical Discectomy without Fusion to Treat Cervical Disc Herniations in Patients with Previous Cervical Fusions. Cureus. 2017;9(4):e1131. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1131
Hosoi K, Tonomura H, Takatori R, Nagae M, Mikami Y, Osawa T, Arai Y, Fujiwara H, Kubo T. Usefulness of anterior cervical fusion using titanium interbody cage for treatment of cervical degenerative disease with preoperative segmental kyphosis. Medicine. 2017;96(32):e7749. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007749
Rao MJ, Nie SP, Xiao BW, Zhang GH, Gan XR, Cao SS. Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease:a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2015;135(1):19-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2122-5
Chung JY, Park J-B, Seo H-Y, Kim SK. Adjacent Segment Pathology after Anterior Cervical Fusion. Asian Spine Journal. 2016;10(3):582-592. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.3.582
Fay L-Y, Huang W-C, Tsai T-Y, Wu J-C, Ko C-C, Tu T-H, Wu C-L, Cheng H. Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. European Spine Journal. 2014;23(3):627-634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3123-8
Wang F, Wang P, Miao D-C, Du W, Shen Y. Different surgical approaches for the treatment of adjacent segment diseases after anterior cervical fusion: A retrospective study of 49 patients. Medicine. 2017;96(23):e7042. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007042
Ahn S-S, So W-S, Ku M-G, Kim S-H, Kim D-W, Lee B-H. Radiologic Findings and Risk Factors of Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study with 3-Year Follow-Up Using MRI. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society. 2016;59(2):129-136. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2016.59.2.129
Yang B, Li H, Zhang T, He X, Xu S. The Incidence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA): A Meta Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):e35032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035032