Next Article in Journal
Neural Correlates of Aberrant Salience and Source Monitoring in Schizophrenia and At-Risk Mental States—A Systematic Review of fMRI Studies
Next Article in Special Issue
Prevalence and Incidence of Osteoarthritis: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
Following Pediatric and Adult IBD Patients through the COVID-19 Pandemic: Changes in Psychosocial Burden and Perception of Infection Risk and Harm over Time
Previous Article in Special Issue
Electric Scooter-Related Injuries: A New Epidemic in Orthopedics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 18
10.3390/jcm10184125
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Differences in the Prevalence of Clinical Adjacent Segment Pathology among Continents after Anterior Cervical Fusion: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

by
Young-Woo Chung
1,
Sung-Kyu Kim
2,* and
Yong-Jin Park
2
1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gwangju Veterans Hospital, 99 Cheomdanwolbong-ro, Gwangsan-gu, Gwangju 62284, Korea
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, 42 Jebong-ro, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61748, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(18), 4125; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184125
Submission received: 17 July 2021 / Revised: 13 August 2021 / Accepted: 7 September 2021 / Published: 13 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Prevalence and Incidence of Musculoskeletal Pathologies/Injuries and Related Surgeries)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Development of adjacent segment pathology leading to secondary operation is a matter of concern after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Some studies have reported anatomic difference between races, but no epidemiological data on prevalence of clinical adjacent segment pathology (cASP) among races or continents has been published. The purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery after monosegmental ACDF among continents by meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library with manual searching in key journals, reference lists, and the National Technical Information Service were searched from inception to December 2018. Twenty studies with a total of 2009 patients were included in the meta-analysis. We extracted the publication details, sample size, and prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery. A total of 15 papers from North America, three from Europe, and two from Asia met the inclusion criteria. A total number of 2009 patients underwent monosegmental ACDF, and 113 patients (5.62%) among them had cASP that underwent surgery. The rate of cASP that underwent surgery was 4.99% in the North America, 3.65% in the Europe, 6.34% in the Asia, and there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.63). The current study using the method of meta-analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in the rate of cASP that underwent surgery after ACDF among the continents.

1. Introduction

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of cervical disease in numerous long-term follow-up studies [1,2,3]. This technique involves direct decompression of the neural elements and stabilizes the affected motion segments. However, despite the benefits of ACDF, associated complications such as surgical site hematoma, damage to the neuro-vascular structures, esophageal injury, airway obstruction, and adjacent segment pathology (ASP) are frequently seen. ASP is a long-term complication after cervical fusion and a matter of grave concern until now. The pathogenesis of this complication is still a matter of debate. The etiology of ASP is most likely multifactorial and has been extensively studied in countless studies.
Previous investigators found differences in morphology of the cervical vertebral among races [4,5]. A research paper quantitatively investigated cervical morphology between Chinese and White men and reported significant differences [6]. We have wondered whether these anatomical differences affect etiology of ASP. However, to our knowledge, no epidemiological data on clinical adjacent segment pathology (cASP) leading to secondary surgery has been reported.
The original purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of cASP among races by meta-analysis. However, we could not find any articles or research data about differences by race. Therefore, the changed purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery after ACDF among continents by meta-analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

Through an electronic search by two clinical investigators, we identified all randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in English up to December 2018, which involved ACDF for symptomatic cervical disc disorder. Electronic searching source included PUBMED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. The searches used a combination of keywords describing technical procedures and anatomical features and pathology, including both MESH terms and free text words. Searches included the following keywords: “anterior cervical discectomy and fusion”, “anterior fusion”, “cervical spine”, “adjacent segment degeneration”, “adjacent segment disease”, “adjacent segment pathology”, and “randomized controlled trials”.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

Eligible articles included the following required conditions: (1) studies published in English; (2) articles with randomized controlled trials; (3) ACDF performed at only 1 level for symptomatic radiculopathy; (4) minimum of 2 years postoperative follow-up duration of the included patients; and (5) articles with existence of cASP that underwent surgery after ACDF.

2.3. Data Extraction and Outcome Measures

A standard data extraction format was used to record the data. Our study extracted publication details (title, authors, year of publication, institution, and location of study), sample size, follow-up period, fusion material, and prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery. We considered that the continent to which the patient belongs was determined based on the location of the institution where the study was conducted. We calculated the prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery with 95% confidence intervals for each study and the overall prevalence calculated with weighted average of summary statistics through meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of data was evaluated using the I2 statistic. This statistic aims to assess the impact of heterogeneity on the meta-analysis [7]. The rates were defined as I2 < 30% as low heterogeneity, I2 = 30~60% as moderate heterogeneity, and I2 > 60% as high heterogeneity.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the R software (Version 3.5.1; R Foundation, Indianapolis, IN, USA). For dichotomous outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, while standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs were derived for continuous outcomes. SMD was conducted over weighted mean difference, because different measurement indexes that adopted different tools were used in these studies. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed by Cochrane Handbook Q test and I2 statistic. A p < 0.05 and I2 > 50% were considered as significant, and heterogeneity models were applied.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search Results

After searching with the above-mentioned keywords, we identified 616 suitable articles. After exclusion of 273 duplicated articles and 291 irrelevant articles that did not meet our inclusion criteria in the abstract, we reviewed 52 abstracts. After applying further inclusion criteria, 20 studies with total 2009 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1). A summary for identifying relevant studies is displayed in Table 1. A total of 15 papers were from North America, 3 from Europe, and 2 from Asia [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. We extracted data of these 20 studies including supplementary details.

3.2. Analysis of Data

3.2.1. Continents

A total of 2009 patients in 20 studies underwent ACDF and 113 patients (5.62%) among these had cASP that underwent surgery. The prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery was 4.99% in the North America, 3.65% in the Europe, and 6.34% in the Asia; the prevalence values showed no significant difference (p = 0.63) (Figure 2). The mean follow-up duration after ACDF was 4 years in North America, 2.33 years in Europe, and 3 years in Asia. Considering similar follow-up duration for the studies, the Asia studies showed higher cASP that underwent surgery following ACDF. However, this was not statistically significant. Comparisons of the overall data were significant heterogeneity models as the I2 was 48% with p < 0.01.

3.2.2. Follow-Up Duration

We also focused on the follow-up duration after ACDF and performed subgroup analysis at a different follow-up time. Follow-up duration of 11 studies was more than 4 years, and follow-up duration of 9 studies was less than 4 years. The prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery was 5.65% in the more than 4 years follow-up group and 3.69% in less than 4 years follow-up group. However, statistical analysis showed no significant difference comparing between the follow-up duration (p = 0.12) (Figure 3).

3.2.3. Fusion Material

The data of fusion material were collected from 18 randomized controlled trials. There were 1935 patients enrolled, 1495 in the allograft/plate group, 342 in the cage/plate group, and 98 in the tricortical iliac bone autograft/plate group. The prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery was higher in the cage/plate group (5.17%) than the other two groups, although there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.74) (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Background

The ACDF as the most common method in treating cervical disc degeneration has been carried out for many years. The ACDF is well accepted by spine surgeons, as it provides a good relief of compression and provides stability of cervical spine. However, the greatest disadvantage of ACDF is that it reduces range of motion of the cervical spine and as a result, changes the biomechanical properties of the cervical spine that may accelerate the degeneration of adjacent segments [28,29,30]. It is supposed that ASP arises when the fusion increases load and segmental motion at the adjacent levels and causes biomechanical overload with subsequent accelerated disc degeneration [31,32,33].
In a study published by the previous author, the annual incidence of cASP after anterior cervical fusion was found to be approximately 3% per year and 25.6% at 10 years [34]. Recently, Chung et al. [35] reported that 19.2% of 177 patients having cASP after ACDF with anterior plate at a minimum 10-year follow-up. A plate-to-disc distance of less than 5 mm, spondylosis, and multilevel fusion were the predisposing factors for occurrence of cASP. The etiology of cASP after ACDF is most likely multifactorial. The plate-to-disc distance, the sagittal malalignment, incorrect needle placement and soft tissue injury at the adjacent level have been proposed as etiologic factors [35,36].

4.2. Setting Up of Study Topic

We wondered if, considering bone size or cervical lordosis, differences between the races could affect cASP or reoperation as a risk factor. Initially, we assumed that the patient’s race between the East and the West would have differences in cASP that needed surgery. However, we could not find any articles or research data about differences by race. Additionally, Western countries such as Germany and North America include large numbers of immigrants. We could not analyze the pure differences between races. Thus, we tried to analyze the difference between the continents instead of races. The continents were classified according to the location of an article’s corresponding institution. In addition, the criteria for cASP that needed surgery were not clear and varied from article to article. So, we changed the survey with cASP that underwent surgery.

4.3. Analysis of Our Results

Considering the follow-up period, Asia had higher prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery after ACDF. However, this was not statistically significant. We thought that there would be a difference in cASP that underwent surgery among continents due to operating technique and facilities, or differences of representative race of the continent such as vertebral body height, surface area of end plate, bone strength, cervical lordosis, etc. Therefore, we made the following inferences: (1) If vertebral body height is higher than other races, the probability of reoperation may be less due to large plate-to-disc distance. (2) If cervical lordosis is larger than other races, the probability of reoperation may be less due to well-maintained overall cervical alignment after ACDF. (3) If bone strength is stronger than other races, the possibility of reoperation may be less due to well-maintained alignment without subsidence until fusion. However, as mentioned above, there were only few of the articles reporting cervical end plate size of different races and no study concerning the other factors (operating technique and facilities, body height, bone strength, cervical lordosis, etc.) have been reported [4,5,6,37]. We conjectured that although there is no statistical significance, the rate of cASP that underwent surgery is higher in Asia because of less cervical lordosis and small cervical vertebra. Additionally, it is expected that cASP that needed surgery is high in the long follow-up group and cage/plate group with the largest difference compared to the bone in material property. However, the analysis of these results should be further investigated in the future.

4.4. Limitation of Study

This was the first systematic review on this topic. However, there are some limitations in the meta-analysis for this study: (1) Different surgeons and surgical techniques may have caused a high heterogeneity and may have led to bias. (2) Each article did not use the same classification systems or imaging diagnostic methods as the criteria for the diagnosis of cASP. (3) There were a small number of RCTs in Asia and Europe. There is a lack of power balance of the investigated groups that were compared. Therefore, the result should be accepted with caution and further research is required to reflect the broader Asian and European population. However, we think it is meaningful that it is the first paper to compare the prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery after ACDF among continents. (4) Age, sex, and race ratio of continent that could affect the outcome were not identified in our enrolled studies. (5) Due to the limitation of the study design and information in the articles included in the study, it is not clear whether differences in regional anatomic variances or in the surgery technique may influence the prevalence of cASP.

5. Conclusions

Our study using the method of meta-analysis showed that, although the rate of cASP that underwent surgery after ACDF is higher in Asia, there were no statistical differences among the continents. Additionally, subgroup analysis shows that fusion material and follow up period have the influence to cASP that underwent surgery, but there were no statistically significant differences. More high-quality RCTs and race differentiated anatomical studies are needed to confirm the result and to find more clinical relevance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.-K.K.; Data Curation, Y.-W.C. and Y.-J.P.; Formal Analysis, Y.-W.C. and Y.-J.P.; Investigation, Y.-W.C.; Methodology, Y.-W.C. and S.-K.K.; Project Administration, S.-K.K.; Resources, Y.-W.C. and Y.-J.P.; Supervision, S.-K.K.; Validation, Y.-J.P.; Writing—Original Draft, Y.-W.C.; Writing—Review and Editing, S.-K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No external funding was received for this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF2018R1D1A1A02086142).

Conflicts of Interest

The submitted manuscript does not contain information about any medical devices or drugs. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Burkhardt, B.W.; Brielmaier, M.; Schwerdtfeger, K.; Oertel, J.M. Clinical outcome following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with and without anterior cervical plating for the treatment of cervical disc herniation—A 25-year follow-up study. Neurosurg. Rev. 2018, 41, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Burkhardt, B.W.; Simgen, A.; Wagenpfeil, G.; Hendrix, P.; Dehnen, M.; Reith, W.; Oertel, J.M. Is there a difference in the grade of degeneration at the cervical spine following anterior cervical fusion with respect to clinical outcome, diagnosis, and repeat procedure? An MRI study of 102 patients with a mean follow-up of 25 years. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2019, 32, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hirvonen, T.; Siironen, J.; Marjamaa, J.; Niemelä, M.; Koski-Palkén, A. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in young adults leads to favorable outcome in long-term follow-up. Spine J. 2020, 20, 1073–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Panjabi, M.M.; Duranceau, J.; Goel, V.; Oxland, T.; Takata, K. Cervical human vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of the middle and lower regions. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 1991, 16, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tan, S.H.; Teo, E.C.; Chua, H.C. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur. Spine J. 2004, 13, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Yao, Q.; Yin, P.; Khan, K.; Tsai, T.Y.; Li, J.S.; Hai, Y.; Tang, P.; Li, G. Differences of the Morphology of Subaxial Cervical Spine Endplates between Chinese and White Men and Women. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 20, 2854175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Higgins, J.P.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savovic, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 18, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Zhang, H.X.; Shao, Y.D.; Chen, Y.; Hou, Y.; Cheng, L.; Si, M.; Nie, L. A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Int Orthop. 2014, 38, 2533–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, B.; Yan, W.; Li, M.; Yuan, W.; Wang, Y. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 2012, 37, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Skeppholm, M.; Lindgren, L.; Henriques, T.; Vavruch, L.; Löfgren, H.; Olerud, C. The Discover artificial disc replacement versus fusion in cervical radiculopathy—A randomized controlled outcome trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine J. 2015, 15, 1284–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nabhan, A.; Steudel, W.I.; Nabhan, A.; Pape, D.; Ishak, B. Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J. Long Term Eff. Med. Implants 2007, 17, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Porchet, F.; Metcalf, N.H. Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: Preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg. Focus 2004, 17, E6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Loumeau, T.P.; Darden, B.V.; Kesman, T.J.; Odum, S.M.; Van Doren, B.A.; Laxer, E.B.; Murrey, D.B. A RCT comparing 7-year clinical outcomes of one level symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) following ProDisc-C total disc arthroplasty (TDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Eur. Spine J. 2016, 25, 2263–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hisey, M.S.; Zigler, J.E.; Jackson, R.; Nunley, P.D.; Bae, H.W.; Kim, K.D.; Ohnmeiss, D.D. Prospective, Randomized Comparison of One-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Results at 5-year Follow-up. Int. J. Spine Surg. 2016, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Phillips, F.M.; Geisler, F.H.; Gilder, K.M.; Reah, C.; Howell, K.M.; McAfee, P.C. Long-term Outcomes of the US FDA IDE Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing PCM Cervical Disc Arthroplasty With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 2015, 40, 674–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hisey, M.S.; Bae, H.W.; Davis, R.J.; Gaede, S.; Hoffman, G.; Kim, K.D.; Nunley, P.D.; Peterson, D.; Rashbaum, R.F.; Stokes, J. Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cervical Total Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results at 48 Months Follow-up. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2015, 28, E237–E243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Burkus, J.K.; Traynelis, V.C.; Haid, R.W., Jr.; Mummaneni, P.V. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7-year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2014, 21, 516–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Delamarter, R.B.; Zigler, J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 2013, 38, 711–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Coric, D.; Kim, P.K.; Clemente, J.D.; Boltes, M.O.; Nussbaum, M.; James, S. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: Results in 74 patients from a single site. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2013, 18, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Blumenthal, S.L.; Ohnmeiss, D.D.; Guyer, R.D.; Zigler, J.E. Reoperations in cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior cervical fusion: Results compiled from multiple prospective food and drug administration investigational device exemption trials conducted at a single site. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 2013, 38, 1177–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Coric, D.; Nunley, P.D.; Guyer, R.D.; Musante, D.; Carmody, C.N.; Gordon, C.R.; Lauryssen, C.; Ohnmeiss, D.D.; Boltes, M.O. 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, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sasso, R.C.; Anderson, P.A.; Riew, K.D.; Heller, J.G. 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, 1684–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Burkus, J.K.; Haid, R.W.; Traynelis, V.C.; Mummaneni, P.V. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: Results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2010, 13, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Garrido, B.J.; Taha, T.A.; Sasso, R.C. Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2010, 23, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Murrey, D.; Janssen, M.; Delamarter, R.; Goldstein, J.; Zigler, J.; Tay, B.; Darden, 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 cervical disc disease. Spine J. 2009, 9, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mummaneni, P.V.; Burkus, J.K.; Haid, R.W.; Traynelis, V.C.; Zdeblick, T.A. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2007, 6, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sasso, R.C.; Smucker, J.D.; Hacker, R.J.; Heller, J.G. Artificial disc versus fusion: A prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 2007, 32, 2933–2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dmitriev, A.E.; Cunningham, B.W.; Hu, N.; Sell, G.; Vigna, F.; McAfee, P.C. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: An in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 2005, 30, 1165–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Alhashash, M.; Allouch, H.; Boehm, H.; Shousha, M. Results of Four-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Stand-Alone Interbody Titanium Cages. Asian Spine J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kanna, R.M.; Perambuduri, A.S.; Shetty, A.P.; Rajasekaran, S. A Randomized Control Trial Comparing Local Autografts and Allografts in Single Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using a StandAlone Cage. Asian Spine J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fuller, D.A.; Kirkpatrick, J.S.; Emery, S.E.; Wilber, R.G.; Davy, D.T. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 1998, 23, 1649–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kulkarni, V.; Rajshekhar, V.; Raghuram, L. Accelerated spondylotic changes adjacent to the fused segment following central cervical corpectomy: Magnetic resonance imaging study evidence. J. Neurosurg. 2004, 100 (Suppl. S1), 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Matsunaga, S.; Kabayama, S.; Yamamoto, T.; Yone, K.; Sakou, T.; Nakanishi, K. Strain on intervertebral discs after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 1999, 24, 670–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hilibrand, A.S.; Carlson, G.D.; Palumbo, M.A.; Jones, P.K.; Bohlman, H.H. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1999, 81, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Chung, J.Y.; Kim, S.K.; Jung, S.T.; Lee, K.B. Clinical adjacent-segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Results after a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Spine J. 2014, 14, 2290–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chung, J.Y.; Park, J.B.; Seo, H.Y.; Kim, S.K. Adjacent Segment Pathology after Anterior Cervical Fusion. Asian Spine J. 2016, 10, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Kim, M.K.; Kwak, D.S.; Park, C.K.; Park, S.H.; Oh, S.M.; Lee, S.W.; Han, S.H. Quantitative anatomy of the endplate of the middle and lower cervical vertebrae in Koreans. Spine (Phila. Pa 1976) 2007, 32, E376–E381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 10 04125 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the reviewed literature.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the reviewed literature.
Jcm 10 04125 g001
Jcm 10 04125 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot comparing cASP that underwent surgery among the continents.
Figure 2. Forest plot comparing cASP that underwent surgery among the continents.
Jcm 10 04125 g002
Jcm 10 04125 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot comparing cASP that underwent surgery by follow-up duration.
Figure 3. Forest plot comparing cASP that underwent surgery by follow-up duration.
Jcm 10 04125 g003
Jcm 10 04125 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot comparing cASP that underwent surgery by fusion material.
Figure 4. Forest plot comparing cASP that underwent surgery by fusion material.
Jcm 10 04125 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
NoAuthorsJournalYearcASP * That Underwent Surgery (%)CountryNumber of PatientsFollow-Up (Years)
1Zhang et al. [8]Int. Orthop.20144 (7.1%)China564
2Zhang et al. [9]Spine (Phila. Pa 1976)20123 (5.7%)China532
3Skeppholm et al. [10]Spine J.20152 (2.9%)Sweden702
4Nabhan et al. [11]J. Long Term Eff. Med. Implants20071 (5%)Germany213
5Porchet et al. [12]Neurosurg. Focus20042 (7%)Switzerland282
6Loumeau et al. [13]Eur. Spine J.20164 (18.2%)USA227
7Hisey et al. [14]Int. J. Spine Surg.20166 (7.4%)USA815
8Phillips et al. [15]Spine (Phila. Pa 1976)201519 (9.9%)USA1925
9Hisey et al. [16]J. Spinal Disord. Tech.20151 (1.8%)USA554
10Burkus et al. [17]J. Neurosurg. Spine201410 (5.4%)USA1837
11Delamarter et al. [18]Spine (Phila. Pa 1976)20136 (5.7%)USA1065
12Coric et al. [19]J. Neurosurg. Spine20131 (3.0%)USA334
13Blumenthal et al. [20]Spine (Phila. Pa 1976)20137 (13.5%)USA522
14Coric et al. [21]J. Neurosurg. Spine20117 (6.1%)USA1152
15Sasso et al. [22]JBJS20119 (6.5%)USA1384
16Burkus et al. [23]J. Neurosurg. Spine201013 (10.2%)USA1275
17Garrido et al. [24]J. Spinal Disord. Tech.20103 (11.5%)USA264
18Murrey et al. [25]Spine J.20091 (1.0%)USA1062
19Mummaneni et al. [26]J. Neurosurg. Spine20079 (3.4%)USA2652
20Sasso et al. [27]Spine (Phila. Pa 1976)20072 (3.4%)USA592
* cASP: clinical adjacent segment pathology.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chung, Y.-W.; Kim, S.-K.; Park, Y.-J. Differences in the Prevalence of Clinical Adjacent Segment Pathology among Continents after Anterior Cervical Fusion: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4125. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184125

AMA Style

Chung Y-W, Kim S-K, Park Y-J. Differences in the Prevalence of Clinical Adjacent Segment Pathology among Continents after Anterior Cervical Fusion: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(18):4125. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184125

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chung, Young-Woo, Sung-Kyu Kim, and Yong-Jin Park. 2021. "Differences in the Prevalence of Clinical Adjacent Segment Pathology among Continents after Anterior Cervical Fusion: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 18: 4125. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184125

APA Style

Chung, Y. -W., Kim, S. -K., & Park, Y. -J. (2021). Differences in the Prevalence of Clinical Adjacent Segment Pathology among Continents after Anterior Cervical Fusion: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(18), 4125. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184125

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop