Comparison of Different Osteobiologics in Terms of Imaging Modalities and Time Frames for Fusion Assessment in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

Author:

Chung Andrew S.1ORCID,Ravinsky Robert2ORCID,Kulkarni Ronit2,Hsieh Patrick C.3ORCID,Arts Jacobus J.45,Rodrigues-Pinto Ricardo67ORCID,Wang Jeffrey C.3,Meisel Hans Jörg8,Buser Zorica9ORCID,

Affiliation:

1. Banner Health, Phoenix, AZ, USA

2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Physical Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Phoenix, AZ, USA

3. USC Spine Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

4. Laboratory for Experimental Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

5. Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

6. Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

7. Spinal Unit (UVM), Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António, Porto, Portugal

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

9. Gerling Institute, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, Brooklyn, NY, USA

Abstract

Study Design Systematic review. Objectives The study’s primary objective was to determine how osteobiologic choice affects fusion rates in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The study’s secondary objectives were to 1) determine the optimal timing of fusion assessment following ACDF and 2) determine if osteobiologic type affects the timing and optimal modality of fusion assessment. Methods A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for literature published from 2000 through October 2020 comparing anterior fusion in the cervical spine with various osteobiologics. Both comparative studies and case series of ≥10 patients were included. Results A total of 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies evaluated the efficacy of autograft on fusion outcomes, and 23 studies assessed the efficacy of allograft on fusion outcomes. 3 studies evaluated the efficacy of demineralized bone matrix, and seven assessed the efficacy of rhBMP-2 on fusion outcomes. Other limited studies evaluated the efficacy of ceramics and bioactive glasses on fusion outcomes, and 4 assessed the efficacy of stem cell products. Most studies utilized dynamic radiographs for the assessment of fusion. Overall, there was a general lack of supportive data to determine the optimal timing of fusion assessment meaningfully or if osteobiologic type influenced fusion timing. Conclusions Achieving fusion following ACDF appears to remain an intricate interplay between host biology and various surgical factors, including the selection of osteobiologics. While alternative osteobiologics to autograft exist and may produce acceptable fusion rates, limitations in study methodology prevent any definitive conclusions from existing literature.

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