LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Spine/New Study: Cervical Discectomy Equivalent to Arthroplasty
Spine

New Study: Cervical Discectomy Equivalent to Arthroplasty

December 31, 2018 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

New Study: Cervical Discectomy Equivalent to Arthroplasty
Source: Wikipedia Commons and debivort
#arthroplastySecondary#anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusion#discherniation#interbodyfusion#intervertebraldevice

A 109 patient study concludes that anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) with or without fusion, provides an equivalent outcome to anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA).

This study, “The NECK trial: Effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a double-blinded randomised controlled trial,” appears in the December 21, 2018 edition of The Spine Journal.

The patients either received ACDA, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with an intervertebral cage, or ACD without fusion.

Carmen L.A. Vleggeert-Lankamp, M.D., M.Sc., Ph.D.neurosurgeon at Leiden University Medical Centre inthe Netherlands and investigator on the study explained the rationale to OTW, “This particular topic got our interest because so many of our colleagues started to implant this device. We were perfectly happy with the treatment method that we applied, namely placing an intervertebral cage after anterior discectomy or leaving the intervertebral space happy.”

“We therefore searched the literature in order to get some proof that the new prosthesis would indeed give better results. We could however not find this. Because the prosthesis got so much attention though, we decided to start a randomized controlled trial. We not only wished to evaluate the prosthesis, but we also wanted to evaluate our method of not placing an intervertebral cage.”

The authors described their results as follows, “The NDI [Neck Disability Index] declined from 41 to 47 points at baseline to 19±15 in the ACD group, 19±18 in the ACDF group, and 20±22 in the ACDA group after surgery. VAS [Visual Analog Scale] arm and neck pain declined to half its baseline value and decreased below the critical value of 40mm. Quality of life…increased in all three groups…”

Dr. Vleggeert-Lankamp commented to OTW, “The most important result is that there is no difference between the three types of surgery. Not only does placing a prosthesis in the intervertebral space give the same results as a cage (note that the prosthesis is more expensive!), but it also appeared that not placing a cage gives comparable results. It may be so that in a particular subgroup of patient results would be different however, but our results have no indication in that direction.”

“Practical recommendation: do not place a prosthesis, it is more expensive and does not give better results. Academic interest: if not placing a device in the intervertebral space gives the same result: what would be the advantage of placing a cage in the intervertebral space?”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy