{"title":"Full Endoscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy with Fusion. A Systematic Review.","authors":"Marios Theologou, Panagiotis Varoutis","doi":"10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.44424-23.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess, and to compare the efficacy of anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Major databases, registries, and other relevant material were screened for prospective trials directly comparing AECD and ACDF. No restrictions were imposed. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to high heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening a total of 1339 articles, 2 studies enrolling 225 patients were included. One of these is a randomizedcontrolled- trial, including 120 patients, with a 14% lost to follow-up, showing no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the neck/arm and the North American Spine Society criteria regarding pain/neurological status. Radiological follow-up showed no adjacent-segment disease, with both groups presenting a statistically non-significant progression of a pre-existing adjacent-disc degeneration, and no difference in kyphosis. Recurrence was registered in 7.4% and 6.1% of patients who underwent AECD and ACDF, respectively. No statistically apparent differences in complications were observed. The second is a cohort study, including 135 patients with a 14.8% lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference was found in clinical outcomes assessed using the VAS of the neck/arm and the neck disability index. No radiological data were provided. Recurrence was reported in 4% and 2% of patients in the AECD and ACDF group, respectively. No remarkable differences in complications were reported. Both studies reported that the surgical time was statistically shorter in AECD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. Single-level AECD seems to have results equivalent to ACDF, presenting even some benefits. Technical limitations combined with required surgical skills and experience should be considered. We recommend cautious employment in anticipation of future updates.</p>","PeriodicalId":23395,"journal":{"name":"Turkish neurosurgery","volume":"1 1","pages":"393-400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.44424-23.2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To assess, and to compare the efficacy of anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF).
Material and methods: Major databases, registries, and other relevant material were screened for prospective trials directly comparing AECD and ACDF. No restrictions were imposed. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to high heterogeneity.
Results: After screening a total of 1339 articles, 2 studies enrolling 225 patients were included. One of these is a randomizedcontrolled- trial, including 120 patients, with a 14% lost to follow-up, showing no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the neck/arm and the North American Spine Society criteria regarding pain/neurological status. Radiological follow-up showed no adjacent-segment disease, with both groups presenting a statistically non-significant progression of a pre-existing adjacent-disc degeneration, and no difference in kyphosis. Recurrence was registered in 7.4% and 6.1% of patients who underwent AECD and ACDF, respectively. No statistically apparent differences in complications were observed. The second is a cohort study, including 135 patients with a 14.8% lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference was found in clinical outcomes assessed using the VAS of the neck/arm and the neck disability index. No radiological data were provided. Recurrence was reported in 4% and 2% of patients in the AECD and ACDF group, respectively. No remarkable differences in complications were reported. Both studies reported that the surgical time was statistically shorter in AECD.
Conclusion: A definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. Single-level AECD seems to have results equivalent to ACDF, presenting even some benefits. Technical limitations combined with required surgical skills and experience should be considered. We recommend cautious employment in anticipation of future updates.
期刊介绍：
Turkish Neurosurgery is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary, open access and totally free journal directed at an audience of neurosurgery physicians and scientists. The official language of the journal is English. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Turkish Neurosurgery will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) approval and have strictly observed an acceptable follow-up period. With the exception of reference presentation, Turkish Neurosurgery requires that all manuscripts be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
