ACDF reoperation and pseudoarthrosis rates are elevated in CDA trials compared to observational studies: systematic review and meta-analysis
- Journal
- European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society (Q1)
- Published
- 2 September 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Harsh Wadhwa, Javier Castro, Henry Wong, Jayme Koltsov, Todd Alamin
- PMID
- 42686881
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00586-026-10304-9
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (top studies of the week, 6 September 2026): Systematic review of ACDF pseudoarthrosis and reoperation rates
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) pseudoarthrosis and reoperation rates derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ACDF to cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus other non-CDA studies. METHODS: This meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for studies reporting reoperation and/or symptomatic pseudoarthrosis following ACDF. 61 studies involving 5,798 ACDFs were included. Analyses were stratified by Early (< 3 years), Mid (3-7 years), and Long (> 7 years) follow-up. Combined rates of reoperation and pseudarthrosis with 95% confidence intervals were obtained from random effects models. RESULTS: Ten CDA RCTs, sixteen observational, and two other RCTs not comparing against CDA were included at early-term follow-up. Reoperation following ACDF in early CDA RCTs versus observational and non-CDA RCTs was 7% [5-9] vs. 4% [3-6], p = 0.051. Symptomatic pseudoarthrosis in early CDA RCTs versus observational and non-CDA RCTs was 4% [3-7] vs. 3% [2-4], p = 0.083. Thirteen CDA RCTs, ten observational studies, and one other RCT were included at mid-term follow-up. Reoperation following ACDF was 4-fold higher in mid-term CDA RCTs versus observational studies and non-CDA RCTs (12% [10-16] vs. 3% [1-6], p < 0.001). Symptomatic pseudoarthrosis was 3-fold higher (6% [5-8] vs. 2% [2-4], p = 0.001). Eight CDA RCTs and one observational study were included at long-term follow-up. Overall reoperation did not differ. There were not enough studies of long-term pseudoarthrosis for comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of reoperation and symptomatic pseudoarthrosis after ACDF were higher in CDA RCTs than observational studies at mid-term follow-up. This phenomenon could be driven by multiple sources of bias, including sampling, publication, or patient satisfaction bias.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.