The safety and efficacy of hybrid surgery for multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Acta neurochirurgica 2020-02, Vol.162 (2), p.289-303
• Main Authors: Hollyer, Marcus A., Gill, Emma C., Ayis, Salma, Demetriades, Andreas K.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arthroplasty; Clinical trials; Complications; Degenerative disc disease; Heterogeneity; Interventional Radiology; Joint surgery; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Minimally Invasive Surgery; Neurology; Neuroradiology; Neurosurgery; Patients; Review Article - Spine degenerative; Spine degenerative; Statistical analysis; Surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Systematic review; Vertebrae
• ISSN: 0001-6268; 0942-0940
• DOI: 10.1007/s00701-019-04129-3

Background Multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) can be treated surgically with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), or a hybrid surgery (HS) of the two in which both procedures are used at different vertebral levels. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes of HS against ACDF or CDA alone. Methods Three electronic databases were searched for articles published before December 2018. The literature was searched and assessed by independent reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Results Eight papers were identified as eligible with a total of 424 patients. Post-operative C2–C7 range of motion (ROM) was significantly greater after HS than ACDF ( p = 0.004; mean difference (MD) 6.14°). The ROM of the superior adjacent segment was significantly lower after HS than ACDF ( p < 0.0001; MD − 2.87°) as was the ROM of the inferior adjacent segment ( p = 0.0005; MD − 3.11°). HS patients’ return to work was shorter than those who underwent ACDF ( p < 0.00001; MD − 32.01 days) and CDA ( p < 0.00001; MD − 32.92 days). There were no statistically significant differences in functional outcomes following CDA compared with HS. There was no significant difference in operation time, intra-operative blood loss, or post-operative complications between any of the procedures. Conclusion The number of included studies was small, the heterogeneity between them was substantial, and the quality of evidence was very low. Large randomised controlled trials are required to provide strong evidence that would enable recommendation of one intervention over another.