首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal >Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery
【2h】

Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review comparing multilevel versus single-level surgery

机译:颈椎人工椎间盘置换与融合治疗:比较多级和单级手术的系统评价

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Study design: Systematic review.>Clinical questions: What is the effectiveness of multilevel cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) compared with multilevel fusion with respect to pain and functional outcomes, and are the two procedures comparable in terms of safety? What is the effectiveness of multilevel C-ADR compared with single-level C-ADR with respect to pain and functional outcomes, and are the two procedures comparable in terms of safety?>Methods: A systematic review was undertaken for articles published up to October 2011. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing multilevel C-ADR with multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or comparing multilevel C-ADR with single-level C-ADR. Studies which compared these procedures in the lumbar or thoracic spine or that reported alignment outcomes only were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus.>Results: Two studies compared multilevel C-ADR with multilevel ACDF. While both reported improved Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scores after C-ADR compared with ACDF, only one study reported statistically significant results. Seven studies compared single-level C-ADR with multilevel C-ADR. Results were similar in terms of overall success, NDI and SF-36 scores, and patient satisfaction. There is discrepant information regarding rates of heterotopic ossification; dysphagia rate may be higher in multilevel C-ADR.>Conclusions: The literature suggests that outcomes are at least similar for multilevel C-ADR and ACDF and may favor C-ADR. Future studies are necessary before firm recommendations can be made favoring one treatment strategy. Multilevel C-ADR seems to have similar results to single-level C-ADR but may have higher rates of heterotopic ossification and dysphagia.
机译:>研究设计:系统评价。>临床问题:在疼痛和功能结局方面,多层颈椎人工椎间盘置换术(C-ADR)与多层融合术相比有什么功效,这两个程序在安全性方面是否具有可比性?在疼痛和功能预后方面,多级C-ADR与单级C-ADR相比有什么功效?两种方法在安全性方面是否具有可比性?>方法:进行了系统的回顾检索截至2011年10月的文章。检索电子数据库和关键文章参考列表,以鉴定比较多级C-ADR与多级颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)或多级C-ADR与单级C-ADR的研究。在腰椎或胸椎中比较这些程序的研究或仅报告对准结果的研究被排除在外。两名独立审稿人使用GRADE标准评估了证据的强度,分歧得到了共识的解决。>结果:两项研究比较了多级C-ADR和多级ACDF。与ACDF相比,C-ADR后的两项都报告了颈椎残疾指数(NDI)和短式36分(SF-36)得分有所改善,但只有一项研究报告了统计学上的显着结果。七项研究比较了单级C-ADR和多级C-ADR。在总体成功率,NDI和SF-36得分以及患者满意度方面,结果相似。关于异位骨化率的信息不一; >结论:文献表明,多级C-ADR和ACDF的结果至少相似,并且可能有利于C-ADR。在做出可以推荐一种治疗策略的坚定建议之前,有必要进行进一步的研究。多级C-ADR似乎具有与单级C-ADR相似的结果,但异位骨化和吞咽困难的发生率可能更高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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