No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Neurosurgery

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1153-1160

  Bartels, Ronald H M A ^a   Donk, Roland ^b   Verbeek, André L M ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b CANISIUS WILHELMINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Arthroplasty; Cervical spine; Disc prothesis; Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; JOINT PROSTHESIS; META ANALYSIS; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; PATIENT SAFETY; PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; SPINAL CORD DISEASE; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE FUSION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

DISKECTOMY; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPONDYLOSIS;

EID: 77953027686     PISSN: 0148396X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000369189.09182.5F     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. WCB Evidence Based Practice Group. Artificial cervical and lumbar disc implants: a review of the literature. Worksafe BC. 2005. http://www.worksafebc. com/health-care-providers/Assets/PDF/artificial-cervical-lumbar-disc.pdf.
2. Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports os systematic reviews: the Quorum statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2006:122-139.
3. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.
4. Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Assessing the risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
5. Riina J, Patel A, Dietz J W, Hoskins JS, Trammell TR, Schwartz DD. Comparison of single-level cervical fusion and a metal-on-metal cervical disc replacement. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008; 37 (4) : E71-E77.
6. Mummaneni P, Burkus K, Haid R, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198-209.
7. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, et al. The Prodisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine. 2007;32(18):1935-1941.
8. Wang Y, Cai B, Zhang XS, et al. Clinical outcomes of single level Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective controlled study [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Az Zhi. 2008;46(5):328-332.
9. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the Prodisc-C total disc replacement vs anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J. 2009;9(4):275-286.
10. Heller J, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. 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). 2009;34(2):101-107.
11. Guyer R, Lauryssen C, Blementhal S. A prospective randomized comparison of cervical total disc replacement to anterior cervical fusion. Abstractbook Spineweek Geneva. 2008; C73:45-46.
12. Abitbol JJ, Baldwin NG, Youssef JA, Wright NM. Cervicore disc replacement vs fusion for cervical nerve root compression: functional and occupational outcomes from a prospective, randomized multicenter trial. Abstractbook Spineweek Geneva. 2008; C74:46.
13. Fischgrund J, Garcia R, Gratch M, Wright N. Cervicore disc replacement vs. fusion, results from four study sites in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Abstractbook Spineweek Geneva. 2008; AB5:2.
14. Darden B V, Murrey DB, Zigler JE, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multi-center 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 cervical disc disease. Abstractbook Spineweek Geneva. 2008; C4:8.
15. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multi-center Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption of the Prodisc-C total disc replacement (TDR) vs. anterior discectomy and fusion. Abstractbook Spineweek Geneva. 2008; AB7:3.
16. Heller J. Bryan cervical disc: results of the U. S. randomized clinical trial v ACDF. Abstractbook Spineweek Geneva. 2008; AB6:2.
17. Fessler RG, Papadopoulos S, Anderson P, Heller J, Sasso R. Comparison of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Presented at: 24th Annual Meeting of the AANS/CNS Section on the Disorders of Spine and Peripheral Nerves. Abstractbook. 2008;100:35.
18. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(7):481-491.
19. Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P. Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(1):31-35.
20. Porchet F, Metcalf NH. Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus. 2004; 17 (3) : E6.
21. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, et al. Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(3):423-430.
22. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(26):2933-2942.
23. Wang MC, Chan L, Maiman DJ, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Complications and mortality associated with cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the United States. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(3):342-347.
24. Bartels RH. Evidence based medicine: a marketing tool in spinal surgery. Neurosurgery. 2009; 64 (6) : E1206.
25. Bartels RH, Donk R, Pavlov P, van Limbeek J. Comparison of biomechanical properties of cervical artificial disc prosthesis: a review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2008;110(10):963-967.