Analysis of Complications in Multilevel Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Osteobiologics Other than Bone Morphogenetic Protein: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to analyze the complications related to multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using osteobiologics other than bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. The search to identify studies reporting complications in multilevel ACDF surgery using osteobiologics other than bone morphogenetic protein was performed in August 2020. The study was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: A total of 584 articles were found after searching the databases and removing duplicates. Next, screening was performed in a double reviewer process, and 153 eligible articles-with 4 retrospective studies-in full-text were selected; these met all inclusion criteria. A total of 197 patients received 3-level ACDF, while 72 patients received 4-level ACDF. Osteobiologics were used in all selected articles, allograft was used in 4 studies, autologous bone graft was utilized in 3 articles, and hydroxyapatite was used in 1 article. The main complications reported were dysphagia, adjacent segment disease, and pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited evidence, no conclusions on complications in multilevel ACDF using osteobiologics other than BMP could be made. However, descriptively, the most common complications found were dysphagia, adjacent segment disease, and pseudoarthrosis. Further prospective studies separately analyzing complications in multilevel ACDF by osteobiologics and a number of treated levels are needed.

Complications With Demineralized Bone Matrix, Hydroxyapatite and Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate in Single and Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the evidence available reporting complications in single or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a demineralized bone matrix (DBM), hydroxyapatite (HA), or beta-tricalcium phosphate (ß-TCP). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed in August 2020 to identify studies reporting complications in one or two-level ACDF surgery using DBM, HA, or ß-TCP. The study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1857 patients were included, 981 male and 876 female, across 17 articles; 5 prospective, and 12 retrospectives. We noted heterogeneity among the included studies concerning the study design and combination of graft materials utilized in them. However, we noted a higher incidence of adjacent segment disease (17.7%) and pseudoarthrosis (9.3%) in fusion constructs using DBM. Studies using ß-TCP reported a higher incidence of pseudoarthrosis (28.2%) and implant failures (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Degenerative cervical conditions treated with one or two-level ACDF surgery using DBM, HA, or ß-TCP with or without cervical plating are associated with complications such as adjacent segment disease, dysphagia, and pseudarthrosis. However, consequent to the study designs and clinical heterogeneity of the studies, it is not possible to correlate these complications accurately with any specific graft material employed. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to correctly know the related morbidity of each graft used for achieving fusion in ACDF.

Surgeon Preferences Worldwide in Wound Drain Utilization in Open Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Pathologies.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: Although literature does not recommend routine wound drain utilization, there is a disconnect between the evidence and clinical practice. This study aims to explore into this controversy and analyze the surgeon preferences related to drain utilization, and the factors influencing drain use and criterion for removal. METHODS: A survey was distributed to AO Spine members worldwide. Surgeon demographics and factors related to peri-operative drain use in 1 or 2-level open fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative pathologies were collected. Multivariate analyses by drain utilization, and criterion of removal were conducted. RESULTS: 231 surgeons participated, including 220 males (95.2%), orthopedics (178, 77.1%), and academic/university-affiliated (114, 49.4%). Most surgeons preferred drain use (186, 80.5%) and subfascial drains (169, 73.2%). Drains were removed based on duration by 52.87% of the surgeons, but 27.7% removed drains based on outputs. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of drain use were surgeon's aged 35-44 (OR = 11.9, 95% CI = 1.2-117.2, P = .034), 45-54 (29.1, 3.1-269.6, P = .003), 55-64 (8.9, 1.4-56.5, .019), and wound closure using coaptive films (6.0, 1.2-29.0, P = .025). Additionally, surgeons from Asia Pacific (OR = 5.19, 95% CI = 1.65-16.38, P = .005), Europe (3.55, 1.22-10.31, P = .020), and Latin America (4.40, 1.09-17.83, .038) were more likely to remove drain based on time duration, but surgeons <5 years of experience (10.23, 1.75-59.71, P = .010) were more likely to remove drains based on outputs. CONCLUSIONS: Most spine surgeons worldwide prefer to place a subfascial wound drain for degenerative open lumbar surgery. The choice for drain placement is associated with the surgeon's age and use of coaptive films for wound closure, while the criterion for drain removal is associated with the surgeons' region of practice and experience.

Comparative study of scientific publications in orthopedics journals originating from USA, Japan and China (2000-2012).

PURPOSE: To compare orthopedics publications from USA, Japan and China. METHODS: Scientific papers belong to ''Orthopedics'' category of Science Citation Index Expanded subject categories were retrieved from the "PubMed'' and ''Web of Knowledge'' online databases. RESULTS: In the field of orthopedics, the annual number increased significantly from 2000 to 2012 in the three countries (p<0.001). The share of articles increased significantly in China, but decreased significantly in Japan and USA (p<0.05). In 2012, USA contributed 35.3% of the total world output in orthopedics field and ranked 1st; Japan contributed 5.9% and ranked 4th; China contributed 5.2% and ranked 5th. Publications from USA had the highest accumulated IFs and the highest total citations of articles (USA > Japan > China, p<0.001). Average IF from USA was much higher than Japan and China (p<0.001). USA published the most articles in the top ten orthopedics journals (USA (14355) > Japan (1702) > China (487), p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Although China has undergone significant increase in annual number and percentage of scientific publication in orthopedics journals, it still lags far behind USA and Japan in the field of orthopedics in terms of quantity and quality.

Comparative study of scientific publications in orthopedics journals originating from USA, Japan and China (2000-2012)

PURPOSE: To compare orthopedics publications from USA, Japan and China. METHODS: Scientific papers belong to ''Orthopedics'' category of Science Citation Index Expanded subject categories were retrieved from the "PubMed'' and ''Web of Knowledge'' online databases. RESULTS: In the field of orthopedics, the annual number increased significantly from 2000 to 2012 in the three countries (p<0.001). The share of articles increased significantly in China, but decreased significantly in Japan and USA (p<0.05). In 2012, USA contributed 35.3% of the total world output in orthopedics field and ranked 1st; Japan contributed 5.9% and ranked 4th; China contributed 5.2% and ranked 5th. Publications from USA had the highest accumulated IFs and the highest total citations of articles (USA > Japan > China, p<0.001). Average IF from USA was much higher than Japan and China (p<0.001). USA published the most articles in the top ten orthopedics journals (USA (14355) > Japan (1702) > China (487), p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Although China has undergone significant increase in annual number and percentage of scientific publication in orthopedics journals, it still lags far behind USA and Japan in the field of orthopedics in terms of quantity and quality.(AU)

Comparative study of scientific publications in orthopedics journals originating from USA, Japan and China (2000-2012)

PURPOSE: To compare orthopedics publications from USA, Japan and China. METHODS: Scientific papers belong to ''Orthopedics'' category of Science Citation Index Expanded subject categories were retrieved from the "PubMed'' and ''Web of Knowledge'' online databases. RESULTS: In the field of orthopedics, the annual number increased significantly from 2000 to 2012 in the three countries (p<0.001). The share of articles increased significantly in China, but decreased significantly in Japan and USA (p<0.05). In 2012, USA contributed 35.3% of the total world output in orthopedics field and ranked 1st; Japan contributed 5.9% and ranked 4th; China contributed 5.2% and ranked 5th. Publications from USA had the highest accumulated IFs and the highest total citations of articles (USA > Japan > China, p<0.001). Average IF from USA was much higher than Japan and China (p<0.001). USA published the most articles in the top ten orthopedics journals (USA (14355) > Japan (1702) > China (487), p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Although China has undergone significant increase in annual number and percentage of scientific publication in orthopedics journals, it still lags far behind USA and Japan in the field of orthopedics in terms of quantity and quality.