The Fragility of Statistical Findings in Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview

Journal Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2024 May 3

PMID 38700676

Authors

Emmanuel C Megafu

Michael N Megafu

Janet T Nguyen

Elisabeth Point Du Jour

Wesley H Bronson

James D Lin

Andrew C Hecht

Robert L Parisien

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study employs both the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) to assess the level of robustness in the cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) literature. We hypothesize that dichotomous outcomes involving CDA would exhibit statistical vulnerability.

Methods: A PubMed search was conducted to evaluate dichotomous data for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CDA literature from 2000 to 2023. The FI of each outcome was calculated through the reversal of a single outcome event until significance was reversed. The FQ was calculated by dividing each fragility index by the study sample size. The interquartile range (IQR) was also calculated for the FI and FQ.

Results: Of the 1561 articles screened, 111 met the search criteria, with 35 RCTs evaluating CDA included for analysis. Six hundred and ninety-three outcome events with 130 significant (P < 0.05) outcomes and 563 nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.05) outcomes were identified. The overall FI and FQ for all 693 outcomes were 5 (IQR 3-7) and 0.019 (IQR 0.011-0.043). Fragility analysis of statistically significant outcomes and nonsignificant outcomes both revealed an FI of 5. All of the studies reported loss to follow-up (LTF) data where 65.7% (23) did not report or reported an LTF greater or equal to 5.

Conclusions: The literature regarding CDA RCTs lacks statistical robustness and may misrepresent the conclusions with the sole use of the P value. By implementing the FI and FQ along with the P value, we believe the interpretation and contextualization of the clinical data surrounding CDA will be better understood.

References

Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B . Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic.... Spine J. 2008; 9(4):275-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.006. View

Phillips F, Lee J, Geisler F, Cappuccino A, Chaput C, DeVine J . A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(15):E907-18. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318296232f. View

Heller J, Sasso R, Papadopoulos S, Anderson P, Fessler R, Hacker R . Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 34(2):101-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818ee263. View

Gornet M, Kenneth Burkus J, Shaffrey M, Argires P, Nian H, Harrell Jr F . Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015; 23(5):558-573. DOI: 10.3171/2015.1.SPINE14589. View

Radcliff K, Davis R, Hisey M, Nunley P, Hoffman G, Jackson R . Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 11:31. PMC: 5779239. DOI: 10.14444/4031. View

Delamarter R, Murrey D, Janssen M, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B . Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. SAS J. 2015; 4(4):122-8. PMC: 4365641. DOI: 10.1016/j.esas.2010.09.001. View

Sasso R, Anderson P, Riew K, Heller J . Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(18):1684-92. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00476. View

Coric D, Nunley P, Guyer R, Musante D, Carmody C, Gordon C . Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 15(4):348-58. DOI: 10.3171/2011.5.SPINE10769. View

Ahn P, Kim K, Moon S, Kim K . Changes in cervical range of motion and sagittal alignment in early and late phases after total disc replacement: radiographic follow-up exceeding 2 years. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 11(6):688-95. DOI: 10.3171/2009.7.SPINE0946. View

10.

McAfee P, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B . A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 37(11):943-52. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823da169. View

11.

Tsushima E . Interpreting Results from Statistical Hypothesis Testing: Understanding the Appropriate P-value. Phys Ther Res. 2022; 25(2):49-55. PMC: 9437930. DOI: 10.1298/ptr.R0019. View

12.

Walsh M, Srinathan S, McAuley D, Mrkobrada M, Levine O, Ribic C . The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(6):622-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019. View

13.

Dettori J, Norvell D . How Fragile Are the Results of a Trial? The Fragility Index. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(7):940-942. PMC: 7485073. DOI: 10.1177/2192568220941684. View

14.

Fay L, Huang W, Tsai T, Wu J, Ko C, Tu T . Differences between arthroplasty and anterior cervical fusion in two-level cervical degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J. 2013; 23(3):627-34. PMC: 3940787. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3123-8. View

15.

Parish J, Coric D . Cervical Arthroplasty: Long-Term Outcomes of FDA IDE Trials. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(2 Suppl):61S-64S. PMC: 7263333. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219898154. View

16.

Dufour T, Beaurain J, Huppert J, Dam-Hieu P, Bernard P, Steib J . Clinical and radiological evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with 5-year follow-up: a prospective study of 384 patients. Eur Spine J. 2019; 28(10):2371-2379. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06069-z. View

17.

Evaniew N, Files C, Smith C, Bhandari M, Ghert M, Walsh M . The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey. Spine J. 2015; 15(10):2188-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.06.004. View

18.

Bryan S, Moses R . Sufficiency of the Klenow fragment for survival of polC(Ts) pcbA1 Escherichia coli at 43 degrees C. J Bacteriol. 1988; 170(1):456-8. PMC: 210667. DOI: 10.1128/jb.170.1.456-458.1988. View

19.

Cordero J, Lawrence K, Brown A, Li X, Hayden B, Parisien R . The Fragility of Tourniquet Use in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Arthroplasty. 2022; 38(6):1177-1183. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.12.035. View

20.

Megafu M, Megafu E, Mian H, Singhal S, Nietsch K, Yendluri A . The statistical fragility of outcomes in calcaneus fractures: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Foot (Edinb). 2023; 57:102047. DOI: 10.1016/j.foot.2023.102047. View