TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic literature review to identify the best method for a single level anterior cervical interbody fusion
AU - Van Limbeek, J.
AU - Jacobs, W.C.H.
AU - Anderson, P.G.
AU - Pavlov, P.W.
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - The goal of this systematic literature review was to determine, for patients with degenerative disc disease, which method of single-level anterior Cervical interbody fusion using the anterior approach gives the best clinical and radiological outcome. The number of new techniques for obtaining a solid fusion has increased rapidly, but the rationale for choosing between different techniques is unclean. Randomised comparative studies on anterior cervical interbody fusions were identified in a sensitive Medline, Cochrane and Current Contents database search. Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles that met the selection criteria, using a checklist. The search yielded eight randomised, controlled trials for the systematic literature review. Three of these studies were judged to be of sufficient quality with regard to methodology and the information provided. In the three articles, five different treatment methods were investigated, four of which were interbody fusions. Fusion rates varied between 28% for an allograft method and 63% for a discectomy-alone method. In one study, kyphosis varied from 40% to 62% between treatments. Good clinical outcome (disability, pain and symptoms) ratings varied from 66% to 82%. A meta-analysis to determine the best method for an anterior interbody fusion could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the methods reported and because no standard outcome parameter was used. From this systematic literature review, a gold standard for the treatment of degenerative disc disease could not be identified.
AB - The goal of this systematic literature review was to determine, for patients with degenerative disc disease, which method of single-level anterior Cervical interbody fusion using the anterior approach gives the best clinical and radiological outcome. The number of new techniques for obtaining a solid fusion has increased rapidly, but the rationale for choosing between different techniques is unclean. Randomised comparative studies on anterior cervical interbody fusions were identified in a sensitive Medline, Cochrane and Current Contents database search. Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles that met the selection criteria, using a checklist. The search yielded eight randomised, controlled trials for the systematic literature review. Three of these studies were judged to be of sufficient quality with regard to methodology and the information provided. In the three articles, five different treatment methods were investigated, four of which were interbody fusions. Fusion rates varied between 28% for an allograft method and 63% for a discectomy-alone method. In one study, kyphosis varied from 40% to 62% between treatments. Good clinical outcome (disability, pain and symptoms) ratings varied from 66% to 82%. A meta-analysis to determine the best method for an anterior interbody fusion could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the methods reported and because no standard outcome parameter was used. From this systematic literature review, a gold standard for the treatment of degenerative disc disease could not be identified.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033830549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s005860050223
DO - 10.1007/s005860050223
M3 - Article
SN - 0940-6719
VL - 9
SP - 129
EP - 136
JO - European Spine Journal
JF - European Spine Journal
IS - 2
ER -