Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

Author:

Jain Amit1ORCID,Dhanjani Suraj2,Harris Andrew1,Cartagena Miguel2,Babu Jacob1,Riew Daniel3,Shin John4,Wang Jeffrey C.5,Yoon S. Tim6ORCID,Buser Zorica7ORCID,Meisel Hans Jörg8ORCID,

Affiliation:

1. Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

2. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

3. Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center, New York, NY, USA

4. Mass General Brigham Inc, Boston, MA, USA

5. USC Spine Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

6. Orthopedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

7. Gerling Institute, Brooklyn, NY, USA

8. Neurosurgery, BG Klinikum Bergmannstrost Halle, Halle, Germany

Abstract

Study Design Systematic Literature Review Objective Perform a systematic review evaluating postoperative fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials. Methods Comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed. Included studies were those that reported results of 1–4 levels ACDF using pure structural allograft compared with a mechanical interbody device augmented with an osteobiologic. Excluded studies were those that reported on ACDF with cervical corpectomy; anterior and posterior cervical fusions; circumferential (360° or 540°) fusion or revision ACDF for nonunion or other conditions. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane review guidelines. Results 8 articles reporting fusion rates of structural allograft and an interbody device/osteobiologic pair were included. All included studies compared fusion rates following ACDF among structural allograft vs non-allograft interbody device/osteobiologic pairs. Fusion rates were reported between 84% and 100% for structural allograft, while fusion rates for various interbody device/osteobiologic combinations ranged from 26% to 100%. Among non-allograft cage groups fusion rates varied from 73-100%. One study found PEEK cages filled with combinations of autograft, allograft, and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) to have an overall fusion rate of 26%. In one study comparing plate and zero-profile constructs, there was no difference in fusion rates for two-level fusions. Conclusion There was limited data comparing fusion outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF using structural allograft vs interbody devices augmented with osteobiologic materials to support superiority of one method.

Funder

AO Spine Research Department

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3