首页> 外文期刊>Spine >An Updated Meta- Analysis Comparing Artificial Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ( CDA) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion ( ACDF) for the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (CDDD)
【24h】

An Updated Meta- Analysis Comparing Artificial Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ( CDA) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion ( ACDF) for the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (CDDD)

机译:比较人工颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)与颈前路椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF)进行颈椎间盘退变疾病(CDDD)治疗的比较的荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Study Design.A meta-analysis of published randomized controlled Trials (RCTs).Objective.The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of one-level cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD).Summary of Background Data.ACDF has been widely performed for the treatment of CDDD. However, the loss of motion at the operated level has been hypothesized to accelerated adjacent-level disc degeneration. CDA is designed to avoid the side effect of fusion. However, it is still uncertain whether CDA is more effective and safer than ACDF.Methods.We performed a meta-analysis of published RCTs to examine whether there was a superior clinical effects of CDA than ACDF. A PubMed database search through October 2014 was performed for relevant studies. We included RCTs that reported relevant data in the treatment of one-level CDDD, which were suitable for detailed extraction of data.Results.We identified 18 RCTs eligible for analysis. The results of the meta-analysis indicated longer operative times, more blood loss, lower neck and arm pain scores reported on a visual analog scale (VAS), better neurological success, greater motion at the operated level, fewer secondary surgical procedures in the CDA group than in the ACDF group (P<0.05). The 2 groups had similar lengths of hospital stay, Neck Disability Index scores, and rates of adverse events (P>0.05).Conclusions.Findings of the present meta-analysis indicated that CDA was an effective and safe surgical procedure for the treatment of one-level CDDD, and CDA was found to be more superior than ACDF in terms of VAS neck and arm pain, neurological success, range of motion at the operated level, and secondary surgical procedures.Level of Evidence: 1
机译:研究设计:已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析。目的。本研究的目的是比较颈椎间盘置换术(CDA)与颈前路椎间盘切除术和融合术(ACDF)的疗效和安全性一类宫颈退行性椎间盘疾病(CDDD)。背景数据概述ACDF已广泛用于CDDD的治疗。然而,已经假设在操作水平的运动损失会加速相邻水平的椎间盘退变。 CDA旨在避免融合的副作用。然而,尚不确定CDA是否比ACDF更有效,更安全。方法:我们对已发表的RCT进行了荟萃分析,以检查CDA是否比ACDF具有更好的临床疗效。进行了一项有关截至2014年10月的PubMed数据库搜索。我们将报告相关数据的RCT纳入一级CDDD的治疗中,这些CDT适用于详细提取数据。结果我们确定了18项有资格进行分析的RCT。荟萃分析的结果表明,手术时间更长,失血更多,以视觉模拟量表(VAS)报告的颈部和手臂疼痛评分更低,神经系统成功率更高,手术水平的动作更多,CDA中的二次外科手术更少与ACDF组比较(P <0.05)。两组的住院时间,颈部残疾指数得分和不良事件发生率相似(P> 0.05)。结论。本荟萃分析的结果表明,CDA是一种安全有效的手术方法在VAS颈部和手臂疼痛,神经学上的成功,手术范围内的运动范围以及第二次外科手术方面,发现CDDD水平和CDA优于ACDF。证据级别:1

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号