Review
. 2021 Oct;32(4):505-510.
doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2021.05.009.
Epub 2021 Jul 29.
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
- 2 University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA.
- 3 Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, 225 Baldwin Avenue, Charlotte, NC 28204, USA; Atrium Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Item in Clipboard
Review
Jonathan M Parish et al.
Neurosurg Clin N Am.
2021 Oct.
Display options
Format
. 2021 Oct;32(4):505-510.
doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2021.05.009.
Epub 2021 Jul 29.
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
- 2 University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA.
- 3 Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, 225 Baldwin Avenue, Charlotte, NC 28204, USA; Atrium Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Item in Clipboard
Display options
Format
Abstract
Intuitively, the introduction of artificial discs into spinal surgery offered the promise of reducing the incidence of adjacent segment (AS) reoperation compared with fusion. Several early clinical studies reported nonstatistically significant differences in AS disease between total disc replacement and fusion. Given the relatively low rate of AS reoperation (∼1%-2% per year) following fusion, any appropriately powered study designed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference compared with arthroplasty would require thousands of patients and/or long-term follow-up (>5 years). Therefore, these differences only become apparent with large study size or meta-analyses and longer follow-up.
Keywords:
Adjacent level disease; Arthroplasty; Cervical disc replacement; Lumbar disc replacement; Motion preservation.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Cite