Hybrid surgery for multilevel cervical degenerative disc diseases: a systematic review of biomechanical and clinical evidence

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Zhiwei Jia (1)
  Zhongjun Mo (2)
  Fan Ding (1)
  Qing He (1)
  Yubo Fan (2)
  Dike Ruan (1)
  
• 关键词：Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion ; Cervical disc replacement ; Hybrid surgery ; Degenerative disc diseases ; Systematic review
• 刊名：European Spine Journal
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：August 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：23
• 期：8
• 页码：1619-1632
• 全文大小：404 KB
• 参考文献：1. Fay LY, Huang WC, Tsai TY, Wu JC, Ko CC, Tu TH, Wu CL, Cheng H (2013) Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 23(3):627鈥?34 CrossRef
  2. Zechmeister I, Winkler R, Mad P (2011) Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20(2):177鈥?84 CrossRef
  3. Dmitriev AE, Kuklo TR, Lehman RA Jr, Rosner MK (2007) Stabilizing potential of anterior, posterior, and circumferential fixation for multilevel cervical arthrodesis: an in vitro human cadaveric study of the operative and adjacent segment kinematics. Spine 32(6):E188鈥揈196 CrossRef
  4. Lopez-Espina CG, Amirouche F, Havalad V (2006) Multilevel cervical fusion and its effect on disc degeneration and osteophyte formation. Spine 31(9):972鈥?78 CrossRef
  5. Matsunaga S, Kabayama S, Yamamoto T, Yone K, Sakou T, Nakanishi K (1999) Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine 24(7):670鈥?75 CrossRef
  6. Schwab JS, Diangelo DJ, Foley KT (2006) Motion compensation associated with single-level cervical fusion: where does the lost motion go? Spine 31(21):2439鈥?448 CrossRef
  7. Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L (2011) Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review. Spine 36(25):E1623鈥揈1633 CrossRef
  8. Cason GW, Herkowitz HN (2013) Cervical intervertebral disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(3):279鈥?85 CrossRef
  9. Fallah A, Akl EA, Ebrahim S, Ibrahim GM, Mansouri A, Foote CJ, Zhang Y, Fehlings MG (2012) Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7(8):e43407 CrossRef
  10. Kepler CK, Brodt ED, Dettori JR, Albert TJ (2012) Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery. Evid Based Spine Care J 3(S1):19鈥?0
  11. Park DH, Ramakrishnan P, Cho TH, Lorenz E, Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH (2007) Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. J Neurosurg Spine 7(3):336鈥?40 CrossRef
  12. Prasarn ML, Baria D, Milne E, Latta L, Sukovich W (2012) Adjacent-level biomechanics after single versus multilevel cervical spine fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 16(2):172鈥?77 CrossRef
  13. Shin DA, Yi S, Yoon do H, Kim KN, Shin HC (2009) Artificial disc replacement combined with fusion versus two-level fusion in cervical two-level disc disease. Spine 34(11):1153鈥?159 discussion 1160鈥?161 CrossRef
  14. Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Fras CI, Balderston JR, Rushton SA, Chin KR (2008) The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 8(5):711鈥?16 CrossRef
  15. Barbagallo GM, Assietti R, Corbino L, Olindo G, Foti PV, Russo V, Albanese V (2009) Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc arthroplasty for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: opposite or complementary techniques? Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 1):29鈥?9 CrossRef
  16. Hey HW, Hong CC, Long AS, Hee HT (2013) Is hybrid surgery of the cervical spine a good balance between fusion and arthroplasty? Pilot results from a single surgeon series. Eur Spine J 22(1):116鈥?22 CrossRef
  17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100 CrossRef
  18. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712鈥?16 CrossRef
  19. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www. cochrane-handbook.org
  20. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):383鈥?94 CrossRef
  21. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):401鈥?06 CrossRef
  22. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336(7650):924鈥?26 CrossRef
  23. Barrey C, Campana S, Persohn S, Perrin G, Skalli W (2012) Cervical disc prosthesis versus arthrodesis using one-level, hybrid and two-level constructs: an in vitro investigation. Eur Spine J 21(3):432鈥?42 CrossRef
  24. Cho BY, Lim J, Sim HB, Park J (2010) Biomechanical analysis of the range of motion after placement of a two-level cervical ProDisc-C versus hybrid construct. Spine 35(19):1769鈥?776 CrossRef
  25. Cunningham BW, Hu N, Zorn CM, McAfee PC (2010) Biomechanical comparison of single- and two-level cervical arthroplasty versus arthrodesis: effect on adjacent-level spinal kinematics. Spine J 10(4):341鈥?49 CrossRef
  26. Faizan A, Goel VK, Biyani A, Garfin SR, Bono CM (2012) Adjacent level effects of bi level disc replacement, bi level fusion and disc replacement plus fusion in cervical spine鈥撯€揳 finite element based study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 27(3):226鈥?33 CrossRef
  27. Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Renner SM, Carandang G, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2011) Disc replacement adjacent to cervical fusion: a biomechanical comparison of hybrid construct versus two-level fusion. Spine 36(23):1932鈥?939 CrossRef
  28. Martin S, Ghanayem AJ, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, Havey RM, Renner SM, Carandang G, Abjornson C, Patwardhan AG (2011) Kinematics of cervical total disc replacement adjacent to a two-level, straight versus lordotic fusion. Spine 36(17):1359鈥?366 CrossRef
  29. Safavi-Abbasi S, Reyes PM, Abjornson C, Crawford NR (2013) Feasibility and biomechanics of multilevel arthroplasty and combined cervical arthrodesis and arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech (Epub ahead of print)
  30. Zhao Y, Li Q, Mo Z, Sun Y, Fan Y (2013) Finite element analysis of cervical arthroplasty combined with fusion against 2-level fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(6):347鈥?50 CrossRef
  31. Cardoso MJ, Mendelsohn A, Rosner MK (2011) Cervical hybrid arthroplasty with 2 unique fusion techniques. J Neurosurg Spine 15(1):48鈥?4 CrossRef
  32. Kang L, Lin D, Ding Z, Liang B, Lian K (2013) Artificial disk replacement combined with midlevel ACDF versus multilevel fusion for cervical disk disease involving 3 levels. Orthopedics 36(1):e88鈥揺94 CrossRef
  33. Lee SB, Cho KS, Kim JY, Yoo DS, Lee TG, Huh PW (2012) Hybrid surgery of multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease: review of literature and clinical results. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 52(5):452鈥?58 CrossRef
  34. Ren X, Chu T, Jiang T, Wang W, Wang J, Changqing L, Zhang Z (2012) Cervical disc replacement combined with cage fusion for the treatment of multi-level cervical disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech (Epub ahead of print)
  35. Yang B, Li H, Zhang T, He X, Xu S (2012) The incidence of adjacent segment degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA): a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 7:e35032 CrossRef
  36. Chang UK, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim SH, Lim J (2007) Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 7(1):33鈥?9 CrossRef
  37. Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC (2005) Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 30(10):1165鈥?172 CrossRef
  38. Mo ZJ, Zhao YB, Wang LZ, Sun Y, Zhang M, Fan YB (2014) Biomechanical effects of cervical arthroplasty with U-shaped disc implant on segmental range of motion and loading of surrounding soft tissue. Eur Spine J 23(3):613鈥?21 CrossRef
  39. Maldonado CV, Paz RD, Martin CB (2011) Adjacent-level degeneration after cervical disc arthroplasty versus fusion. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 3):403鈥?07 CrossRef
  40. Song KJ, Choi BW, Jeon TS, Lee KB, Chang H (2011) Adjacent segment degenerative disease: is it due to disease progression or a fusion-associated phenomenon? Comparison between segments adjacent to the fused and non-fused segments. Eur Spine J 20(11):1940鈥?945 CrossRef
  41. DiAngelo DJ, Roberston JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC (2003) Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):314鈥?23 CrossRef
  42. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4(6 Suppl):190S鈥?94S CrossRef
  43. Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA (1999) Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical spine fusion on adjacent segments. Biomed Mater Eng 9(1):27鈥?8
  44. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, An HS (2002) Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine 27(22):2431鈥?434 CrossRef
  45. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, Hu S, Tay BK, Lotz JC (2004) Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine 29(24):2809鈥?814 CrossRef
  46. Verma K, Gandhi SD, Maltenfort M, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Radcliff KE (2013) Rate of adjacent segment disease in cervical disc arthroplasty versus single-level fusion: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Spine 38(26):2253鈥?257 CrossRef
  47. Lund T, Oxland TR (2011) Adjacent level disk disease鈥撯€搃s it really a fusion disease? Orthop Clin North Am 42(4):529鈥?41 CrossRef
  48. Cho SK, Riew KD (2013) Adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(1):3鈥?1 CrossRef
  49. Sekhon LH, Sears W, Duggal N (2005) Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 3(5):335鈥?41 CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Zhiwei Jia (1)
  Zhongjun Mo (2)
  Fan Ding (1)
  Qing He (1)
  Yubo Fan (2)
  Dike Ruan (1)
  
  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Navy General Hospital, Clinical School of Navy, Second Military Medical University, NO.6 Fucheng Road, Beijing, 100048, People鈥檚 Republic of China
  2. Key Laboratory for Biomechanics and Mechanobiology of Ministry of Education, International Joint Research Center of Aerospace Biotechnology and Medical Engineering of Ministry of Science and Technology, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, XueYuan Road No.37, Beijing, 100191, People鈥檚 Republic of China
  
• ISSN：1432-0932

文摘

Purpose The optimal surgical technique for multilevel cervical degenerative disc diseases (DDD) remains controversial. Hybrid surgery (HS) incorporating anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc replacement (CDR) is increasingly performed for cervical DDD. This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical and clinical evidence available for HS and to provide a systematic review of current understanding of HS. Methods This systematic review was undertaken by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. Multiple databases and online registers of clinical trials were searched up to February 2014. The biomechanical and clinical studies on HS for cervical DDD written in English were included. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Results Fifteen studies including eight biomechanical studies and seven clinical studies were indentified. The biomechanical studies showed that HS was benefit to motion preservation of the operative levels and revealed less adverse effect on adjacent segments. All clinical studies demonstrated improvement in validated functional scores after HS. Segment motion and immobilization were achieved at the arthroplasty level and arthrodesis level, respectively. Postoperative assessments and complication rate were similar or in favor of HS when comparing with ACDF or CDR. However, the overall quality of evidence for HS was low to very low. Conclusions There is a paucity of high quality evidence for HS. HS may be a safe and efficacious technique to benefit a select group of multilevel cervical DDD, which is needed to be confirmed by further prospective, randomized controlled trials.