Rate of Adjacent Segment Disease in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Versus Single-level Fusion: Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Study Design: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Objective: To compare the reported incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD) requiring surgical intervention between anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) and total disc arthroplasty (TDA).
Summary Of Background Data: The concern for ASD has led to the development of motion-preserving technologies such as TDA. To date, however, no known study has sought to compare the incidence of ASD between ACDF and TDA in major prospective studies.
Methods: A systematic review of IDE and non-IDE trials was performed using PubMed and Cochrane libraries. These databases were thoroughly searched for prospective randomized studies comparing ACDF and TDR. Six studies met the inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis and were used to report an overall rate of ASD for both ACDF and TDA.
Results: Pooling data from 6 prospective studies, the overall sample size at baseline was 1586 (ACDF = 777, TDA = 809) and at the final follow-up was 1110 giving an overall follow-up of 70%. Patients after an ACDF had a lower rate of follow-up overall than those after TDR (ACDF: 67.3% vs. TDR: 72.6%, P= 0.01). Thirty-six patients required adjacent-level surgery after an ACDF at 2 to 5 years of follow-up (6.9%) compared with 30 patients after a TDA (5.1%). The corresponding reoperation rate for ASD was 2.4 ± 1.7% per year for ACDF versus 1.1 ± 1.5% per year for TDR. These differences were not statistically significant (P= 0.44). Using a Kaplan-Meier analysis and historical data, we expect 48 patients in the ACDF group and 55 patients in the TDR group to have symptomatic disease at an adjacent level.
Conclusion: From a meta-analysis of prospective studies, there is no difference in the rate of ASD for ACDF versus TDA. We also report an overall lower rate of follow-up for patients with ACDF than for those with TDR. Future prospective studies should continue to focus on excellent patient follow-up and accurate assessment of patient symptoms that are attributable to an adjacent level as this has been an under-reported finding in prospective studies.
Level Of Evidence: 1.
Graebsch C, Buser Z, Leroy S, Wang J, Yoon T, Bone S Global Spine J. 2025; :21925682251316557.
PMID: 39883027 PMC: 11783404. DOI: 10.1177/21925682251316557.
Luo Y, Huang X, Yue Y, Lin X, Chen G, Wang K Heliyon. 2024; 10(10):e30904.
PMID: 38765031 PMC: 11097065. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30904.
Dave B, Chauhan V, Amin P, Mayi S, Krishnan A, Degulmadi D J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2023; 14(3):268-273.
PMID: 37860030 PMC: 10583798. DOI: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_56_23.
Ng M, Emara A, Rajan P, Grits D, Pathak N, Ng K J Spine Surg. 2023; 9(1):54-64.
PMID: 37038421 PMC: 10082422. DOI: 10.21037/jss-21-39.
Cervical Radiculopathy: Focus on Factors for Better Surgical Outcomes and Operative Techniques.
Kang K, Jang T, Jung C Asian Spine J. 2023; 16(6):995-1012.
PMID: 36599372 PMC: 9827215. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2022.0445.