Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
Author Spotlight: Scope of LE-ULBD as a Safe, Effective, and Minimally Invasive Approach to Treat Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Published on: February 9, 2024
Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Optimal Treatment Approaches of Degenerative Cervical Spondylosis: A 12-Year
Pan Li1, Runbo Lei1, Lixiang Ding2
1Department of Orthopaedics, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an.
Study Design/Setting:
A retrospective cohort study.
Objective:
To compare long-term outcomes and complications of cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with cage-plate constructs (CPC) and stand-alone (SA) cages in treating degenerative cervical spondylosis.
Summary Of Background Data:
ACDF is commonly used for cervical radiculopathy but may increase adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). CDR has gained popularity by preserving motion and potentially reducing ASD, whereas SA cages offer a simpler alternative to CPC. Despite widespread adoption, further research is needed to clarify the long-term outcomes and associated complications.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1146 patients who underwent cervical surgery between 2009 and 2012 at three Chinese hospitals, grouped into CDR (n=220), CPC-ACDF (n=540), and SA-ACDF (n=386). Primary outcomes included overall success rate and complications. Secondary measures were JOA, VAS, SF-36 scores, and imaging parameters.
Results:
The CDR group exhibited a significantly higher overall success rate compared with CPC-ACDF and SA-ACDF groups. Dysphagia incidence immediately post-surgery was significantly lower in the CDR and SA-ACDF groups compared with CPC-ACDF. At the final follow-up, implant subsidence was lowest in the CDR group. Radiographic-ASD incidence was significantly lower in the CDR and SA-ACDF groups compared with CPC-ACDF, with SA-ACDF having the lowest rate of symptomatic-ASD. The reoperation occurred in 38 (7.0%) CPC-ACDF, 18 (4.7%) SA-ACDF, and 8 (3.6%) CDR patients. Despite a 65.5% incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO), CDR partially preserved the angular range of motion. Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that SA-ACDF and CDR were protective factors against postoperative radiographic-ASD. Conditional nomograms demonstrated good predictive performance for symptomatic-ASD, supported by receiver operating characteristics and calibration curves.
Conclusion:
This study suggests that CDR provides similar clinical outcomes with fewer complications compared with ACDF. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings, particularly considering the variability between different CDR devices and the potential for selection bias.
