To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Comparing 2-year efficacy of CDA versus ACDF in management of two-level cervical spine degeneration

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
December 2017

Comparing 2-year efficacy of CDA versus ACDF in management of two-level cervical spine degeneration

Vol: 6| Issue: 12| Number:9| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Prestige LP artificial cervical disc replacement at 2 levels: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Jul;27(1):7-19

Contributing Authors:
JK Burkus MF Gornet J McConnell TH Lanman RG Dryer SD Hodges

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

397 patients with two-level degenerative cervical disc disease were randomized to either two-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The primary outcome was a composite measure for treatment success, including clinical scores, radiographic parameters, no adverse events, and no secondary surgeries. Follow-up was performed over 7 years afte...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue