European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
-
Review Comparative Study
Anterior versus posterior surgery for multilevel cervical myelopathy, which one is better? A systematic review.
The objective of the study is to perform a systematic review to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of anterior surgery with posterior surgery for multilevel cervical myelopathy (MCM). MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and other databases were searched for all the relevant original articles published from January 1991 to November 2009 comparing anterior with posterior surgery for MCM. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the follow-up years. ⋯ In conclusion, anterior surgery had better clinical outcomes and more complications at the early stage after operation for both multilevel CSM and OPLL patients. At the late stage, posterior surgery had similar clinical outcomes and complications to anterior surgery for CSM patients, and OPLL patients with occupying ratio of OPLL <60%. While for OPLL patients with occupying ratio ≥ 60%, anterior surgery had superior clinical outcome to posterior surgery.
-
Considerable controversy exists regarding the optimal management of elderly patients with type II odontoid fractures. There is uncertainty regarding the consequences of non-union. The best treatment remains unclear because of the morbidity associated with prolonged cervical immobilisation versus the risks of surgical intervention. ⋯ There is insufficient evidence to establish a standard or guideline for odontoid fracture management in elderly. While most authors agree that cervical immobilisation yields satisfactory results for type I and III fractures in the elderly, the optimal management for type II fractures remain unsolved. A prospective randomised controlled trial is recommended.
-
Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been increasingly used as an alternative to fusion surgery in patients with pain or neurological symptoms in the cervical spine who do not respond to non-surgical treatment. A systematic literature review has been conducted to evaluate whether CTDR is more efficacious and safer than fusion or non-surgical treatment. Published evidence up to date is summarised qualitatively according to the GRADE methodology. ⋯ So far, CTDR is not recommended for routine use. As many trials are ongoing, re-evaluation at a later date will be required. Future research needs to address the relative effectiveness between CTDR and conservative treatment.
-
Cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) has been increasingly used as an alternative to fusion surgery in patients with pain or neurological symptoms in the cervical spine who do not respond to non-surgical treatment. A systematic literature review has been conducted to evaluate whether CTDR is more efficacious and safer than fusion or non-surgical treatment. Published evidence up to date is summarised qualitatively according to the GRADE methodology. ⋯ So far, CTDR is not recommended for routine use. As many trials are ongoing, re-evaluation at a later date will be required. Future research needs to address the relative effectiveness between CTDR and conservative treatment.