PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 17, 2026Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research0 citationsOpen Access

Technical evolution and short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional open anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ZDZihua DingJLJichen LiuHXHaishan Xu

Key Points

  • This study aims to evaluate the technical evolution of minimally invasive anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and its outcomes compared to conventional techniques.
  • Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
  • Searched databases like PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies.
  • Performed random-effects meta-analysis on studies with quantitative outcomes; assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I.
  • Minimally invasive ACDF associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (MD -21.93 mL, 95% CI -31.30 to -12.56; P < 0.00001).
  • No significant differences in postoperative dysphagia (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.43; P = 0.58) or overall complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.04; P = 0.06).
  • Pain outcomes improved in both groups but could not be pooled due to differences in definitions.

Abstract

Conventional open anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an established treatment for degenerative cervical disease, but approach-related morbidity remains a concern. Minimally invasive anterior cervical techniques have evolved from microscope-assisted mini-open procedures to endoscope-assisted and selected full-endoscopic approaches. This study systematically reviewed the technical evolution of minimally invasive ACDF-related procedures and compared perioperative and short-term outcomes with conventional open ACDF. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Comparative studies were included in the quantitative synthesis, whereas selected non-comparative anterior endoscopic reports were retained for qualitative contextualization of technical evolution. Risk of bias in comparative nonrandomized studies was assessed with ROBINS-I. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs). Because pain outcomes were reported using non-uniform anatomical constructs, VAS data were summarized qualitatively rather than pooled. Studies that reported only category-specific adverse events without clear patient-level totals were excluded from the pooled analysis of overall complications to avoid double-counting. Eight studies were included. Five comparative studies involving 347 patients were quantitatively synthesized, and three additional reports informed the qualitative analysis. Minimally invasive ACDF was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss than open ACDF (MD -21.93 mL, 95% CI -31.30 to -12.56; P < 0.00001; I² = 74%)). No significant between-group differences were observed for postoperative dysphagia (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.43; P = 0.58), overall complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.04; P = 0.06), length of stay (MD -0.55 days, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11; P = 0.10), JOA (MD 0.48, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.01; P = 0.08), or NDI (MD -0.39, 95% CI -1.33 to 0.56; P = 0.42). Pain outcomes improved in both groups across individual studies but were not meta-analyzed because reported pain definitions differed across studies. Minimally invasive ACDF may reduce intraoperative blood loss while providing short-term neurological, disability, and complication outcomes broadly comparable to conventional open ACDF. Better-standardized comparative studies, particularly with harmonized pain definitions and blood-loss reporting, are needed. PROSPERO CRD42026001353049, retrospectively registered on 27 March 2026.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ding et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a095b5d7880e6d24efe10d5https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-06929-7
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper