Dataset Information

What Is the Evidence Supporting Osteobiologic Use in Revision Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Systematic literature review.

Objective

To analyze the literature and describe the evidence supporting osteobiologic use in revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted for literature reporting the use of osteobiologics in revision ACDF. We searched for studies reporting outcomes of using any osteobiologic use in revision ACDF surgeries (independently of the number of levels) in the above databases.

Results

There are currently no studies in the literature describing the outcome and comparative efficacy of diverse osteobiologic agents in the context of revision ACDF surgery. A majority of the current evidence is based only upon studies involving primary ACDF surgery.

Conclusion

The current study highlights the paucity of literature evidence on the role of diverse osteobiologics in revision ACDF, and foregrounds the need for high-quality evidence on this subject.

SUBMITTER: Muthu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10913914 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What Is the Evidence Supporting Osteobiologic Use in Revision Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

Muthu Sathish S Diniz Sara Elisa SE Viswanathan Vibhu Krishnan VK Hsieh Patrick C PC Abedi Aidin A Yoon Tim T Meisel Hans Jörg HJ Buser Zorica Z Rodrigues-Pinto Ricardo R Knowledge Forum Degenerative Ao Spine AS

Global spine journal 20240201 2_suppl

<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic literature review.<h4>Objective</h4>To analyze the literature and describe the evidence supporting osteobiologic use in revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted for literature reporting the use of osteobiologics in revision ACDF. We searched for studies reporting outcomes of using any osteobiologic use in revision A ...[more]

PMID: 38421324

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designRetrospective Cohort.ObjectivesTo (1) quantify the risk opioids impart on pseudarthrosis development, (2) analyze the effect of pseudarthrosis on clinical outcomes, and (3) identify if the amount of opioids prescribed are predictive of pseudarthrosis revision.MethodsPatients who underwent ACDF at a single institution between 2017-2019 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative dynamic cervical spine radiographs were reviewed to assess fusion status. Logistic regression models measured the effect of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed on the likelihood of pseudarthrosis development. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to predict the probability of surgical revision based on MME prescribed.ResultsOf 298 included patients, an average of 2.01 ± 0.82 levels were included in the construct and 121 (40.9%) patients were diagnosed with a pseudarthrosis. However, only 14 (4.7%) required a pseudarthrosis revision. Patients requiring pseudarthrosis revision had worse one-year postoperative Δ PCS-12 (-1.70 vs. 7.58, P = 0.004), Δ NDI (3.33 vs. -15.26, P = 0.002), and Δ VAS Arm (2.33 vs. -2.48, P = .047). Multivariate logistic regression analyses found the three-month postoperative (OR=1.00, P = .010), one-year postoperative (OR=1.001, P = 0.025), and combined pre- and postoperative MME (OR=1.000, P = .035) increased the risk of pseudarthrosis. ROC analysis identified cutoff values to predict pseudarthrosis revision at 90.00 (area under the curve (AUC): 0.693, confidence interval (CI): 0.554-0.832), 132.86 (0.710, CI: 0.589-0.840), 224.76 (0.687, CI: 0.558-0.817) and 285.00 (0.711, CI: 0.585-0.837) MME in the preoperative, three-month postoperative, one-year postoperative, and combined pre-and postoperative period.ConclusionIncreased prescription of opioid medications following ACDF procedures may increase the risk of pseudarthrosis development and revision surgery.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level III.

Project description:BackgroundDisparities in neurosurgical care have emerged as an area of interest when considering the impact of social determinants on access to health care. Decompression via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for cervical stenosis (CS) may prevent progression towards debilitating complications that may severely compromise one's quality of life. This retrospective database analysis aims to elucidate demographic and socioeconomic trends in ACDF provision and outcomes of CS-related pathologies.MethodsThe Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample database was queried between 2016 and 2019 using International Classification of Diseases 10th edition codes for patients undergoing ACDF as a treatment for spinal cord and nerve root compression. Baseline demographics and inpatient stay measures were analyzed.ResultsPatients of White race were significantly less likely to present with manifestations of CS such as myelopathy, plegia, and bowel-bladder dysfunction. Meanwhile, Black patients and Hispanic patients were significantly more likely to experience these impairments representative of the more severe stages of the degenerative spine disease process. White race conferred a lesser risk of complications such as tracheostomy, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury in comparison to non-white race. Insurance by Medicaid and Medicare conferred significant risks in terms of more advanced disease prior to intervention and negative inpatient. Patients in the highest quartile of median income consistently fared better than patients in the lowest quartile across almost every aspect ranging from degree of progression at initial presentation to incidence of complications to healthcare resource utilization. All outcomes for patients age > 65 were worse than patients who were younger at the time of the intervention.ConclusionsSignificant disparities exist in the trajectory of CS and the risks associated with ACDF amongst various demographic cohorts. The differences between patient populations may be reflective of a larger additive burden for certain populations, especially when considering patients' intersectionality.

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.

Dataset Information

What Is the Evidence Supporting Osteobiologic Use in Revision Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

Study design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

What Is the Evidence Supporting Osteobiologic Use in Revision Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets