English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:  Total disc replacement (TDR) using Mobi-C cervical artificial disc might be promising to treat symptomatic degenerative disc disease. However, the results remained controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of Mobi-C cervical artificial disc and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease.    Methods:  PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of Mobi-C versus ACDF on the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were neck disability index (NDI) score, patient satisfaction, and subsequent surgical intervention. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.    Results:  Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with ACDF surgery for symptomatic degenerative disc disease, TDR using Mobi-C was associated with a significantly increased NDI score (Std. mean difference = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.10–0.53;  P  = .004), patient satisfaction (odds risk [OR] = 2.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43–5.27;  P  = .002), and reduced subsequent surgical intervention (OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.11–0.37;  P  < .001). Mobi-C was found to produce comparable neurological deterioration (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.35–1.72;  P  = .53), radiographic success (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 0.39–3.59;  P  = .77), and overall success (OR = 2.13; 95% CI = 0.80–5.70;  P  = .13) compared with ACDF treatment.    Conclusion:  Among the 4 included RCTs, 3 articles were studying patients with 1 surgical level, and 1 article reported 2 surgical levels. When compared with ACDF surgery in symptomatic degenerative disc disease, TDR using Mobi-C cervical artificial disc resulted in a significantly improved NDI score, patient satisfaction, and reduced subsequent surgical intervention. There was no significant difference of neurological deterioration, radiographic success, and overall success between TDR using Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus ACDF surgery. TDR using Mobi-C cervical artificial disc should be recommended for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease.

Efficacy and safety of Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion in patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease