liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Investigation of clinically important benefit of anterior cervical decompression and fusion
Linköping University, Department of Department of Health and Society, Division of Physiotherapy. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6075-4432
2007 (English)In: European spine journal, ISSN 0940-6719, E-ISSN 1432-0932, Vol. 16, no 4, 507-514 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. Vol. 16, no 4, 507-514 p.
National Category
Social Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-37872DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0271-0Local ID: 40030OAI: diva2:258721
Available from: 2009-10-10 Created: 2009-10-10 Last updated: 2013-09-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Peolsson, Anneli
By organisation
Division of PhysiotherapyFaculty of Health Sciences
In the same journal
European spine journal
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 109 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link