Dataset Information

The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Systematic literature review.

Objectives

In this study we assessed evidence for the use of osteobiologics in single vs multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spine degeneration. The primary objective was to compare fusion rates after single and multi-level surgery with different osteobiologics. Secondary objectives were to compare differences in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications.

Methods

After a global team of reviewers was selected, a systematic review using different repositories was performed, confirming to PRISMA and GRADE guidelines. In total 1206 articles were identified and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were eligible for analysis. Extracted data included fusion rates, definition of fusion, patient reported outcome measures, types of osteobiologics used, complications, adverse events and revisions.

Results

Fusion rates ranged from 87.7% to 100% for bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and 88.6% to 94.7% for demineralized bone matrix, while fusion rates reported for other osteobiologics were lower. All included studies showed PROMs improved significantly for each osteobiologic. However, no differences were reported when comparing osteobiologics, or when comparing single vs multi-level surgery specifically.

Conclusion

The highest fusion rates after 2-level ACDF for cervical spine degeneration were reported when BMP-2 was used. However, PROMs did not differ between the different osteobiologics. Further blinded randomized trials should be performed to compare the use of BMP-2 in single vs multi-level ACDF specifically.

SUBMITTER: Hoffmann J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10913903 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Hoffmann Jim J Ricciardi Guillermo A GA Yurac Ratko R Meisel Hans Jörg HJ Buser Zorica Z Qian Bangping B Vergroesen Pieter-Paul A PA

Global spine journal 20240201 2_suppl

<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic literature review.<h4>Objectives</h4>In this study we assessed evidence for the use of osteobiologics in single vs multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spine degeneration. The primary objective was to compare fusion rates after single and multi-level surgery with different osteobiologics. Secondary objectives were to compare differences in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications.<h4>Methods</h4>Af ...[more]

PMID: 38421334

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative readmissions are a commonly used metric for quality-of-care initiatives, but emergency department (ED) visits have received far less attention despite their substantial impact on patient satisfaction and healthcare spending. The current study described the incidence and timing of ED visits following single-level ACDF, determined predictive factors and reasons for ED utilization, and compared reimbursement for patients with and without ED use.MethodsSingle-level ACDF procedures from 2010-2020 were identified in PearlDiver using CPT codes. Patients' age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI) score, region of the country, and insurance coverage were extracted. The incidence, timing, and primary diagnoses for 90-day ED visits and readmissions were determined, as well as total 90-day reimbursement. Variables were compared using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.ResultsOut of 90,298 patients, 90-day ED visits were identified for 10,701 (11.9%), with the greatest incidence in postoperative weeks 1-2. Readmissions were identified for 3,325 (3.7%) patients. Independent predictors of ED utilization included younger age (OR 1.25 per 10-year decrease, p<0.001), greater ECI score (OR 1.40 per 2-point increase, p<0.001), and insurance type (relative to Medicare, Medicaid [OR 2.15, p<0.001] and commercial plans [OR 1.14, p=0.004]). In postoperative weeks 1-2, 51% of primary ED diagnoses involved the surgical site, while 23% involved the surgical site in weeks 3-13. Compared to patients without ED visits, those who visited the ED had 65% greater mean 90-day reimbursement (p<0.001).ConclusionsMore than three times as many patients in the current study were found to present to the ED than be readmitted within ninety days of surgery. The identified predictive factors and reasons for ED visits can direct attention to high-risk patients and common postoperative issues. Additional postoperative counseling and integrated care pathways may reduce ED visits, thereby improving patient care and reducing healthcare spending.

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a standard surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, but reoperations sometimes are performed to treat complications of fusion such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent-segment degeneration. A cervical disc arthroplasty is designed to preserve motion and avoid the shortcomings of fusion. Available evidence suggests that a cervical disc arthroplasty can provide pain relief and functional improvements similar or superior to an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. However, there is controversy regarding whether a cervical disc arthroplasty can reduce the frequency of reoperations.Questions/purposesWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion regarding (1) the overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels; (2) the frequency of reoperation at the index level; and (3) the frequency of reoperation at the adjacent levels.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and reporting the frequency of reoperation. We also manually searched the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Twelve RCTs with a total of 3234 randomized patients were included. Eight types of disc prostheses were used in the included studies. In the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group, autograft was used in one study and allograft in 11 studies. Nine of 12 studies were industry sponsored. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CI were calculated for the frequency of reoperation using random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A funnel plot suggested the possible presence of publication bias in the available pool of studies; that is, the shape of the plot suggests that smaller negative or no-difference studies may have been performed but have not been published, and so were not identified and included in this meta-analysis.ResultsThe overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels was lower in the cervical disc arthroplasty group (6%; 108/1762) than in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group (12%; 171/1472) (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80; p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed according to secondary surgical level. Compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc arthroplasty was associated with fewer reoperations at the index level (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.001) and adjacent levels (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74; p < 0.001).ConclusionsCervical disc arthroplasty is associated with fewer reoperations than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, indicating that it is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, because of some limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additional studies are needed.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:To estimate the effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) compared to anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) for patient-important outcomes for single-level cervical spondylosis.Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register for Randomized Controlled Trials, BIOSIS and LILACS), archives of spine meetings and bibliographies of relevant articles.We included RCTs of ACDF versus ACDA in adult patients with single-level cervical spondylosis reporting at least one of the following outcomes: functionality, neurological success, neck pain, arm pain, quality of life, surgery for adjacent level degeneration (ALD), reoperation and dysphonia/dysphagia. We used no language restrictions. We performed title and abstract screening and full text screening independently and in duplicate.We used random-effects model to pool data using mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We used GRADE to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.Of 2804 citations, 9 articles reporting on 9 trials (1778 participants) were eligible. ACDA is associated with a clinically significant lower incidence of neurologic failure (RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37-0.75, p = 0.0004) and improvement in the Neck pain visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD = 6.56, 95% CI = 3.22-9.90, p = 0.0001; Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 2.5. ACDA is associated with a statistically but not clinically significant improvement in Arm pain VAS and SF-36 physical component summary. ACDA is associated with non-statistically significant higher improvement in the Neck Disability Index Score and lower incidence of ALD requiring surgery, reoperation, and dysphagia/dysphonia.There is no strong evidence to support the routine use of ACDA over ACDF in single-level cervical spondylosis. Current trials lack long-term data required to assess safety as well as surgery for ALD. We suggest that ACDA in patients with single level cervical spondylosis is an option although its benefits and indication over ACDF remain in question.

Dataset Information

The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Study design

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets