Investigation of clinically important benefit of anterior cervical decompression and fusion

The objectives of the prospective randomized study are to investigate the clinically relevant change after anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) using measures of pain intensity (visual analog scale, VAS) and neck disability index (NDI). And to determine the number of subjects showing persistent pain and disability at 6-year follow-up. To investigate the possibility of differences in outcome between ACDF with the cervical intervertebral fusion cage (CIFC) and the Cloward procedure (CP). Clinically relevant change and residual, postoperative pain intensity and disability after ACDF have been investigated a little. Ninety-five patients with neck and radicular arm pain lasting for at least 6 months were randomly selected to receive ACDF with the CP or the CIFC. Questionnaires concerning pain and NDI were obtained from 83 patients (87%) at a mean follow-up time of 76 months (range 56–94 months). When evaluating clinical benefits regarding pain intensity 6 years after ACDF, according to different cut-off points and relative percentages, symptoms improved in 46–78% of patients. Improvement in NDI was seen in 18–20% of patients. Approximately 70% of the patients had persistent pain and disability at 6-year follow-up. There was no clinically important difference following CP versus CIFC. Thirty millimeter and 20% in pain intensity and NDI, respectively, are reasonable criteria to suggest a clinically relevant change after ACDF. Before patients undergo ACDF, they should be informed that they have an approximate 50% probability of achieving pain relief and little probability of functional improvement. The findings demonstrate that there is poor evidence for difference between CIFC and CP

Long-term randomised comparison between a carbon fibre cage and the Cloward procedure in the cervical spine

A prospective randomised study. To compare the long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with a cervical intervertebral fusion cage (CIFC) and the Cloward procedure (CP). We have previously shown that the 2 year outcome of ACDF with the CIFC is the same as for the CP. The fusion rate in CIFC group was, however, only 55%, compared to 85% in CP group. The long-term outcome of CIFC is poorly documented. Ninety-five patients with at least 6 months duration of neck pain and radicular arm pain were randomly allocated for ACDF with the CIFC or the CP. Radiographs were obtained at 2 years. Questionnaires about pain, disability (Neck Disability Index, NDI), distress, quality of life and global outcome were obtained from 83 patients (87%) (43 CIFC, 40 CP) at a mean follow-up time of 6 years (range 56–94 months). There were no significant differences in any outcome variable between the two treatments. For both CP and CIFC the pain intensity improved (P<0.0001) whereas the NDI was unchanged at long-term follow-up compared to preoperatively. In the CIFC group patients with a healed fusion had significantly less mean pain (24 mm) and NDI (26%) than patients with pseudarthrosis (42 and 41, respectively). Furthermore, the mean pain and NDI reported by CIFC patients with a healed fusion was significantly less than in healed CP patients (37 and 38, respectively). The long-term outcome is the same for the CIFC and the CP, with similar improvements of pain but with considerable remaining functional disability. However, in the subgroup of patients with healed CIFC the outcome was clearly better than for the non-healed CIFC group, and also clearly better than for the healed CP group. Thus, if the healing problem associated with the CIFC can be solved the results indicate that a better outcome can be expected with the cage than with the CP