We have located links that may give you full text access.
Treatment of Cervical Myelopathy: Long-term Outcomes of Arthroplasty for Myelopathy Versus Radiculopathy, And Arthroplasty Versus Arthrodesis for Myelopathy.
Clinical Spine Surgery 2018 December
STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of 2- and 7-year outcomes from a clinical trial comparing 2-level cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in 287 patients with radiculopathy alone, and 110 patients with myelopathy alone or myelopathy with radiculopathy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term safety and effectiveness of CDA for myelopathy versus radiculopathy.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDA for myelopathy is safe and effective in short term.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, SF-36, neurological status, adverse events (AEs), and secondary surgeries at index and adjacent levels.
RESULTS: All groups improved significantly for NDI, neck/arm pain, and physical component summary (PCS) scores from preoperative to postoperative. CDA Myelopathy versus CDA Radiculopathy: 2- and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year score improvements for CDA Myelopathy and CDA Radiculopathy were: NDI (37.8 vs. 35.8, P=0.352), neck pain (12.0 vs. 12.1, P=0.477), arm pain (11.6 vs. 9.6, P=0.480), and PCS (14.1 vs. 13.7, P=0.863). The 2 groups had similar proportions of patients who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 93.5%, P=0.218), similar rates of serious AEs (54.5% vs. 57.5%, P=0.291) and similar rates of secondary surgeries at index (3.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.839) and adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 7.6%, P=0.367). CDA Myelopathy versus ACDF myelopathy: 2 and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year CDA and ACDF score improvements were: NDI (37.8 vs. 31.1, P=0.147), neck pain (12.0 vs. 10.4, P=0.337), arm pain (11.6 vs. 11.4, P=0.791), and PCS (14.1 vs. 11.2, P=0.363). The 2 groups had statistically similar proportions who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 96.2%, P=0.409), statistically similar overall rates of secondary surgeries at the index levels (3.7% vs. 9.4%, P=0.374), and statistically similar rates of secondary surgeries at adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 15.4%, P=0.088). CDA group demonstrated lower rates of serious AEs than ACDF (54.5% vs. 65.9%, P=0.019).
CONCLUSIONS: CDA for myelopathy is a safe and effective long-term treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term safety and effectiveness of CDA for myelopathy versus radiculopathy.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDA for myelopathy is safe and effective in short term.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, SF-36, neurological status, adverse events (AEs), and secondary surgeries at index and adjacent levels.
RESULTS: All groups improved significantly for NDI, neck/arm pain, and physical component summary (PCS) scores from preoperative to postoperative. CDA Myelopathy versus CDA Radiculopathy: 2- and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year score improvements for CDA Myelopathy and CDA Radiculopathy were: NDI (37.8 vs. 35.8, P=0.352), neck pain (12.0 vs. 12.1, P=0.477), arm pain (11.6 vs. 9.6, P=0.480), and PCS (14.1 vs. 13.7, P=0.863). The 2 groups had similar proportions of patients who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 93.5%, P=0.218), similar rates of serious AEs (54.5% vs. 57.5%, P=0.291) and similar rates of secondary surgeries at index (3.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.839) and adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 7.6%, P=0.367). CDA Myelopathy versus ACDF myelopathy: 2 and 7-year improvements were not significantly different. The 7-year CDA and ACDF score improvements were: NDI (37.8 vs. 31.1, P=0.147), neck pain (12.0 vs. 10.4, P=0.337), arm pain (11.6 vs. 11.4, P=0.791), and PCS (14.1 vs. 11.2, P=0.363). The 2 groups had statistically similar proportions who maintained or improved their neurological status (87.2% vs. 96.2%, P=0.409), statistically similar overall rates of secondary surgeries at the index levels (3.7% vs. 9.4%, P=0.374), and statistically similar rates of secondary surgeries at adjacent levels (3.7% vs. 15.4%, P=0.088). CDA group demonstrated lower rates of serious AEs than ACDF (54.5% vs. 65.9%, P=0.019).
CONCLUSIONS: CDA for myelopathy is a safe and effective long-term treatment.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app