Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis of rates of adjacent-level surgery to 7-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective treatment for cervical spondylosis. A limitation of ACDF is the risk of adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD), owing to arthrodesis of a motion segment. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has hence garnered significant attention; yet, compelling evidence of reduction in ASD requiring surgery is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare long-term longitudinal adjacent-level operation rates with CDA versus ACDF. Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted. Eligible studies were multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CDA with ACDF for one- or two-level symptomatic cervical spondylosis. The primary outcome was adjacent-level operation. Index-level reoperation was a secondary outcome. Outcomes were evaluated at 1-year intervals from the index operation to last reported follow-up by random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Eleven RCTs met criteria. For one-level spondylosis, there was no difference in the rate of adjacent-level operation between CDA (2.3%) and ACDF (3.6%) at 2 years. However, a large difference favoring CDA became evident at 5 years and persisted at 7 years (4.3% vs. 10.8%, P<0.001). Significantly fewer patients who underwent CDA required index-level reoperation at all time points out to 7 years (5.2% vs. 12.7%, P<0.001). Similar to one-level operations, there was no significant difference in adjacent-level operations with two-level CDA (1.7%) versus two-level ACDF (3.4%) at 2 years. At 7 years, a significant difference favoring CDA became apparent (5.1% vs. 10.0%, P=0.014). Two-level CDA resulted in fewer index-level reoperations out to 7 years (4.2% vs. 13.5%, P<0.001). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, the short-term rate of adjacent-level operation was similar with CDA or ACDF. However, around 5 years, a statistically significant divergence emerged, where the rate of adjacent-level surgery rose steeply for ACDF. Index-level reoperations were less frequent with CDA in both the short- and long-term. These data indicate CDA may have a superior longevity to ACDF with regard to need for subsequent adjacent-level operation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.065 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".