Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Different Osteobiologics in Terms of Imaging Modalities and Time Frames for Fusion Assessment in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.
Chung, Andrew S; Ravinsky, Robert; Kulkarni, Ronit; Hsieh, Patrick C; Arts, Jacobus J; Rodrigues-Pinto, Ricardo; Wang, Jeffrey C; Meisel, Hans Jörg; Buser, Zorica.
Afiliação
  • Chung AS; Banner Health, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
  • Ravinsky R; Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Physical Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
  • Kulkarni R; Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Physical Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
  • Hsieh PC; USC Spine Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Arts JJ; Laboratory for Experimental Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, CAPHRI, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Rodrigues-Pinto R; Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
  • Wang JC; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • Meisel HJ; Spinal Unit (UVM), Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António, Porto, Portugal.
  • Buser Z; USC Spine Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Global Spine J ; 14(2_suppl): 141S-162S, 2024 Feb.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38421332
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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Global Spine J Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Global Spine J Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article