Single or double-level anterior interbody fusion techniques for cervical degenerative disc disease

Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials as a Predictive Modality for Postoperative Deficit in Cervical Spine Decompression Surgery - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) alarms can predict postoperative neurologic complications in patients undergoing cervical spine decompression surgery.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of the literature was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to retrieve published reports on intraoperative TcMEP monitoring for patients undergoing cervical spine decompression surgery. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), of overall, reversible, and irreversible TcMEP changes for predicting postoperative neurological deficit were calculated. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare anterior vs posterior approaches.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies consisting of 4608 patients were analyzed. The overall incidence of postoperative neurological deficits was 2.58% (119/4608). Overall TcMEP changes had a sensitivity of 56%, specificity of 94%, and DOR of 19.26 for predicting deficit. Reversible and irreversible changes had sensitivities of 16% and 49%, specificities of 95% and 98%, and DORs of 3.54 and 71.74, respectively. In anterior procedures, TcMEP changes had a DOR of 17.57, sensitivity of 49%, and specificity of 94%. In posterior procedures, TcMEP changes had a DOR of 21.01, sensitivity of 55%, and specificity of 94%.

CONCLUSION

TcMEP monitoring has high specificity but low sensitivity for predicting postoperative neurological deficit in cervical spine decompression surgery. Patients with new postoperative neurological deficits were 19 times more likely to have experienced intraoperative TcMEP changes than those without new deficits, with irreversible TcMEP changes indicating a much higher risk of deficit than reversible TcMEP changes.

Are Variable Screw Angle Change and Screw-to-Vertebral Body Ratio Associated With Radiographic Subsidence Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the easily measurable radiographic landmarks of screw-to-vertebral body ratio and changes in screw angle to identify if they are associated with early subsidence following an Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients undergoing 1-3 level ACDF with allograft or PEEK cages. Preoperative, immediate postoperative, and 6-month postoperative radiographs were analyzed to measure intradiscal height (or distance between 2 vertebral bodies) as an anterior vertebral distance (AVD), middle (MVD), and posterior (PVD), screw angle, screw-to-vertebral body length ratio, and interscrew distance. Multivariate stepwise regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

92 patients were included (42 single-level, 32 two-level, and 18 3-level ACDFs). In single-level ACDFs, a decrease in the caudal screw angle was associated with a decrease in AVD (=.001) and MVD (P = .03). A decrease in the PVD was associated with a decrease in segmental lordosis (P < .001). For two-level ACDFs, a higher caudal screw-to-body ratio was associated with a lower MVD (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Six months following an ACDF for degenerative pathology, a decrease in the caudal screw angle was associated with an increase in radiographic subsidence at the antero-medial aspect of the disc space albeit largely subclinical. This suggests that the caudal screw angle change may serve as a reliable radiographic marker for early radiographic subsidence. Furthermore, a greater screw-to-vertebral body ratio may be protective against radiographic subsidence in two-level ACDF procedures.

Do Osteobiologics Augment Fusion in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery Performed With Mechanical Interbody Devices (Polyether ether ketone, Carbon Fiber, Metal Cages) and is the Fusion Rate Comparable to that With Autograft? A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review describing fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using autograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials.

METHODS

A systematic review limited to the English language was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane library using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Studies that evaluated fusion after ACDF using autografts and osteobiologics combined with PEEK, carbon fibre, or metal cages were searched for. Articles in full text that met the criteria were included in the review. The main outcomes evaluated were the time taken to merge, the definition of the fusion assessment, and the modality of the fusion assessment. The risk of bias of each article was assessed by the MINORS score or ROB 2.0 depending on the randomisation process.

RESULTS

The total number of references reviewed was six hundred and eighty-two. After applying the inclusion criteria, 54 were selected for the retrieval of the full text. Eight studies were selected and included for final analysis in this study. Fusion rates were reported between 83.3% and 100% for autograft groups compared to 46.5% and 100% for various interbody device/osteobiological combinations. The overall quality of the evidence in all radiographic fusion studies was considered insufficient due to a serious risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical interbody devices augmented with osteobiologics performed similarly to autografts in terms of reliability and efficacy. Their time to fusion and fusion rate were comparable to autografts at the end of the final follow-up.

A more than 20-year follow-up of pain and disability after anterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease and comparisons between two surgical techniques

BACKGROUND

Follow-ups more than 20 years after neck surgery are extremely rare. No previous randomized studies have investigated differences in pain and disability more than 20 years after ACDF surgery using different techniques. The purpose of this study was to describe pain and functioning more than 20 years after anterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery, and to compare outcomes between the Cloward Procedure and the carbon fiber fusion cage (CIFC).

METHODS

This study is a 20 to 24-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Questionnaires were sent to 64 individuals, at least 20 years after ACDF due to cervical radiculopathy. Fifty individuals (mean age 69, 60% women, 55% CIFC) completed questionnaires. Mean time since surgery was 22.4 years (range 20,5-24). Primary outcomes were neck pain and neck disability index (NDI). Secondary outcomes were frequency and intensity of neck and arm pain, headache, dizziness, self-efficacy, health related quality of life or global outcome. Clinically relevant improvements were defined as 30 mm decrease in pain and a decrease in disability of 20 percentage units. Between-group differences over time were analyzed with mixed design ANOVA and relationships between main outcomes and psychosocial factors were analyzed by Spearman´s rho.

RESULTS

Neck pain and NDI score significantly improved over time (p  <  .001), with no group differences in primary or secondary outcomes. Eighty-eight per cent of participants experienced improvements or full recovery, 71% (pain) and 41% (NDI) had clinically relevant improvements. Pain and NDI were correlated with lower self-efficacy and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The results from this study do not support the idea that fusion technique affects long-term outcome of ACDF. Pain and disability improved substantially over time, irrespective of surgical technique. However, the majority of participants reported residual disability not to a negligible extent. Pain and disability were correlated to lower self-efficacy and quality of life.

Research protocol: Cervical Arthroplasty Cost Effectiveness Study (CACES): economic evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) in the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease - a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

To date, there is no consensus on which anterior surgical technique is more cost-effective in treating cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The most commonly used surgical treatment for patients with single- or multi-level symptomatic CDDD is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). However, new complaints of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy commonly develop at adjacent levels, also known as clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The extent to which kinematics, surgery-induced fusion, natural history, and progression of disease play a role in the development of CASP remains unclear. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is another treatment option that is thought to reduce the incidence of CASP by preserving motion in the operated segment. While ACDA is often discouraged, as the implant costs are higher while the clinical outcomes are similar to ACDF, preventing CASP might be a reason for ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in the long term.

Methods and analysis

In this randomized controlled trial, patients will be randomized to receive ACDF or ACDA in a 1:1 ratio. Adult patients with single- or multi-level CDDD and symptoms of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy will be included. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both techniques from a healthcare and societal perspective. Secondary objectives are the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two techniques, as well as the qualitative process surrounding anterior decompression surgery. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and every 6 months until 4 years post-surgery.

Discussion

High-quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of both ACDA and ACDF is lacking; to date, there are no prospective trials from a societal perspective. Considering the aging of the population and the rising healthcare costs, there is an urgent need for a solid clinical cost-effectiveness trial addressing this question.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04623593. Registered on 29 September 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06574-5.

Automatic 3D analysis of the ex-vivo porcine lumbar interbody fusion based on X-ray micro computed tomography data

Spinal fusion is a surgical procedure used to join two or more vertebrae to prevent movement between them. This surgical procedure is considered in patients suffering from a wide range of degenerative spinal diseases or vertebral fractures. The success rate of spinal fusion is frequently evaluated subjectively using X-ray computed tomography. The pig was chosen as an animal model for spinal fusion, since its spinal structure is similar to the human spine. Our paper presents an automatic approach for pig's spinal fusion evaluation in 3D. The proposed approach is based on the determination of the vertebral fused area, which reflects the fusion quality. The approach was applied and tested on microCT (μCT) data of fused porcine vertebrae ex-vivo. In our study, three types of implants were used to perform spinal fusion: the iliac crest bone graft used as the gold standard, and two types of novel scaffold implants based on the polymer/ceramic porous foam involving either growth factors or polyphosphates. The evaluation worked automatically for all three types of used implants, and the fusion quality was determined quantitatively. The calculation is based on the detection of the fused area and area of facies intervertebralis, so the percentual representation of the vertebral joint can be determined. Since this approach is versatile and is described in detail as a guide for image processing the data of vertebrae fusion, this methodology has the potential to establish a standard approach for evaluating the fusion quality in ex-vivo samples that can be tested on clinical data.

Radiological and Clinical Outcomes after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) with an Innovative 3D Printed Cellular Titanium Cage Filled with Vertebral Bone Marrow

Objectives

To assess the clinical and radiological outcomes after ACDF with 3D printed cellular titanium cages filled with bone marrow and to compare the clinical and radiological results with the current scientific literature.

Methods

ACDF was performed monosegmentally under standardized conditions. X-rays were analyzed to determine the range of motion, fusion rates, and subsidence preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical outcome measurements included neck disability index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for brachialgia and cervicalgia, and patient satisfaction.

Results

18 patients were included in the study. The mean RoM decreased from 7.7° ± 2.6 preoperatively to 1.7° ± 1.1° after 3 months and 1.8° ± 1.2° 12 months after surgery. The fusion rates were at 94.4% after 3 and 12 months. The mean subsidence was 0.9 mm ± 0.5 mm 3 months postoperatively and 1.1 mm ± 0.5 mm 12 months after surgery. The mean NDI improved significantly from preoperatively to 12 months postoperatively (34.6 ± 6.2 and 3.4 ± 4.1, respectively). The VAS-neck also showed a large improvement from 5.8 ± 2.2 before and 1.3 ± 1.4 12 months after surgery, as did the VAS-arm (6.4 ± 1.5 and 0.9 ± 1.6, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high throughout the follow-up period.

Conclusion

ACDF with a 3D printed titanium cage resulted in fast fusion without pathological subsidence. In comparison to other cage materials such as PEEK, the 3D printed titanium cage was noninferior in regard to its fusion rate and clinical results.

Manual therapy interventions in the management of adults with prior cervical spine surgery for degenerative conditions: a scoping review

Objective

Cervical spine surgeries for degenerative conditions are rapidly increasing. Cervical post-surgery syndrome consisting of chronic pain, adjacent segment disease, recurrent disc herniation, facet joint pain, and/or epidural scarring is common. Repeat surgery is regularly recommended, though patients are often unable to undergo or decline further surgery. Manual therapy is included in clinical practice guidelines for neck pain and related disorders, however clinical guidance for utilization of manual therapy in adults with prior cervical spine surgery is lacking. This study aimed to synthesize available literature and characterize outcomes and adverse events for manual therapy interventions in adults with prior cervical spine surgery due to degenerative conditions.

Methods

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews was followed. PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, physiotherapy evidence database, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception through October 2021. English-language literature comprised of randomized clinical trials (RCT), case–control, cohort, and case report designs were included. Adults undergoing manual therapy, with or without combination of other interventions, with prior cervical spine surgery due to degenerative conditions were included.

Results

Twelve articles were identified, including 10 case reports, 1 low-quality RCT, and 1 acceptable-quality RCT. Eight case reports described 9 patients with history of fusion surgery. Two case reports described 2 patients with history of discectomy. One case report described one patient with separate operations of a discectomy at one level and a fusion at another level. One case report described 2 patients with history of cervical disc replacement surgery. The two RCTs included 63 and 86 participants, respectively. Use of manual joint mobilization/manipulation, table/instrument assisted mobilization/manipulation, and multimodal interventions were described in eligible studies. Favorable clinical outcomes were reported in 10 studies. Six case reports/series involving 8 patients described use of unclassified forms of manual therapy. Eight studies described the use of multimodal interventions along with manual therapy. One study described high patient satisfaction. Two studies, accounting for 3 patients, reported serious adverse events.

Conclusions

There is a lack of literature informing evidence related to clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and adverse events associated with manual therapy for patients with prior cervical spine surgery due to degenerative conditions. High-quality studies of higher-level hierarchical study design are needed to understand the clinical utility and safety profile of manual therapy for this population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00422-8.

Using a mixture of local bone dust and morselized bone as graft materials in single- and double-level ACDF

Background

Using a cage filled with local bone in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) can eliminate morbidities associated with autograft harvest from the iliac crest while achieving high fusion rates. However, there is still no consensus regarding the methods for using local bone grafts. This retrospective study was performed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of using a mixture of bone dust and morselized bone versus morselized bone alone in ACDF.

Methods

A retrospective study of 228 patients affected by cervical degenerative disease who had undergone single- or double-level ACDF between January 2014 and June 2018 was performed. Nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 (n-HA/PA66) combined with morselized bone was used in 111 patients (group A: single-level ACDF in 51 patients and double-level ACDF in 60 patients), whereas the n-HA/PA66 cage combined with a mixture of bone dust and morselized bone was used in 117 patients (group B: single-level ACDF in 58 patients and double-level ACDF in 59 patients). The fusion rate, extent of cage subsidence, fusion segmental height (FSH), C2-7 lordosis, segmental sagittal alignment (SSA), 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) score, and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were compared between the two groups.

Results

The VAS score and NDI were significantly reduced after the operation in group A and group B. At the final follow-up, the fusion rate was 90.2 % (46/51) and 94.8 % (55/58) in patients treated with single-level ACDF in group A and group B, respectively (p > 0.05). In patients treated with double-level ACDF, bone fusion was achieved in 52 patients (86.7 %) in group A and 55 patients (93.2 %) in group B (p > 0.05). The fusion rate of single- and double-level ACDF was higher in patients in group B than those in group A at the 3-month, 6-month and 12-month follow-ups (p < 0.05). The extent of cage subsidence after single- and double-level ACDF was lower in patients in group B (1.5 ± 0.5 mm and 2.3 ± 0.8 mm, respectively) than in those in group A (1.8 ± 0.7 mm and 2.9 ± 1.4 mm, respectively) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the C2-7 lordosis, FSH, SSA, VAS score, or NDI before or after the operation (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Using a mixture of local bone dust and morselized bone as cage-filling materials yielded comparably good clinical outcomes as using morselized bone alone in single- and double-level ACDF. However, the mixture graft of bone dust and morselized bone was more beneficial in promoting early fusion and reducing cage subsidence.

What is the predictive value of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for postoperative neurological deficit in cervical spine surgery?-a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cervical decompression and fusion surgery remains a mainstay of treatment for a variety of cervical pathologies. Potential intraoperative injury to the spinal cord and nerve roots poses nontrivial risk for consequent postoperative neurologic deficits. Although neuromonitoring with intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) is often used in cervical spine surgery, its therapeutic value remains controversial.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether significant SSEP changes can predict postoperative neurologic complications in cervical spine surgery. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare the predictive power of SSEP changes in both anterior and posterior approaches.

STUDY DESIGN

The present study was a meta-analysis of the literature from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to identify prospective/retrospective studies with outcomes of patients who underwent cervical spine surgeries with intraoperative SSEP monitoring.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The total cohort consisted of 7,747 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery with intraoperative SSEP monitoring.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for study selection were as follows: (1) prospective or retrospective cohort studies, (2) studies conducted in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery not due to aneurysm, tumor, or trauma with intraoperative SSEP monitoring, (3) studies that reported postoperative neurologic outcomes, (4) studies conducted with a sample size ≥20 patients, (5) studies with only adult patients ≥18 years of age, (6) studies published in English, (7) studies inclusive of an abstract.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and likelihood ratios of overall SSEP changes, reversible SSEP changes, irreversible SSEP changes, and SSEP loss for predicting postoperative neurological deficit were calculated.

RESULTS

The total rate of postoperative neurological deficits was 2.50% (194/7,747) and the total rate of SSEP changes was 7.36% (570/7,747). The incidence of postoperative neurological deficit in patients with intraoperative SSEP changes was 16.49% (94/570) while only 1.39% (100/7,177) in patients without. All significant intraoperative SSEP changes had a sensitivity of 46.0% and specificity of 96.7% with a DOR of 27.32. Reversible and irreversible SSEP changes had sensitivities of 17.7% and 37.1% and specificities of 97.5% and 99.5%, respectively. The DORs for reversible and irreversible SSEP changes were 9.01 and 167.90, respectively. SSEP loss had a DOR of 51.39, sensitivity of 17.3% and specificity 99.6%. In anterior procedures, SSEP changes had a DOR of 9.60, sensitivity of 34.2%, and specificity of 94.7%. In posterior procedures, SSEP changes had a DOR of 13.27, sensitivity of 42.6%, and specificity of 94.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

SSEP monitoring is highly specific but weakly sensitive for postoperative neurological deficit following cervical spine surgery. The analysis found that patients with new postoperative neurological deficits were nearly 27 times more likely to have had significant intraoperative SSEP change. Loss of SSEP signals and irreversible SSEP changes seem to indicate a much higher risk of injury than reversible SSEP changes.

Comprehensive Analysis of Hybrid Surgery and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in Cervical Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

To investigate the outcomes and reliability of hybrid surgery (HS) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis and disc diseases.Hybrid surgery, combining cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with fusion, is a novel treatment to multilevel cervical degenerated disc disease in recent years. However, the effect and reliability of HS are still unclear compared with ACDF.To investigate the studies of HS versus ACDF in patients with multilevel cervical disease, electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched. Studies were included when they compared HS with ACDF and reported at least one of the following outcomes: functionality, neck pain, arm pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), quality of life, and incidence of complications. No language restrictions were used. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted the relevant data.Seven clinical controlled trials were included in this study. Two trials were prospective and the other 5 were retrospective. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that HS achieved better recovery of NDI score (P = 0.038) and similar recovery of VAS score (P = 0.058) compared with ACDF at 2 years follow-up. Moreover, the total cervical ROM (C2-C7) after HS was preserved significantly more than the cervical ROM after ACDF (P = 0.000) at 2 years follow-up. Notably, the compensatory increase of the ROM of superior and inferior adjacent segments was significant in ACDF groups at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.01), compared with HS.The results demonstrate that HS provides equivalent outcomes and functional recovery for cervical disc diseases, and significantly better preservation of cervical ROM compared with ACDF in 2-year follow-up. This suggests the HS is an effective alternative invention for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis to preserve cervical ROM and reduce the risk of adjacent disc degeneration. Nonetheless, more well-designed studies with large groups of patients are required to provide further evidence for the benefit and reliability of HS for the treatment of cervical disk diseases.

Correlation of Anterior Interbody Graft Choice With Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cervical Spine Trauma

STUDY DESIGN

Ambispective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Synthetic graft usage avoids morbidity associated with harvest and reduces operative time. This study aims to evaluate outcomes of anterior cervical stabilization surgery using a synthetic cage in comparison with iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) following cervical spine trauma.

METHODS

An ambispective review was conducted on patients from the Alfred Trauma Registry. Consecutive patients treated at a level 1 trauma center, aged 18 years and older who were treated with standalone anterior cervical stabilization following spine trauma (2011-2016) were included in the study. Primary outcome measures were patient overall satisfaction, Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS-neck) and arm pain 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS-arm). Secondary outcome measures were radiographic evidence of fusion and rate of revision surgery. All patients had follow-up for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, 114 traumatic disc levels in 104 patients were treated. ICBG was used in 32% and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in 68% of the patients. Both groups had similar demographic metrics. There was no significant difference in primary outcome measures between the graft types: (1) patient satisfaction (P = .15), (2) NDI (P = .11), (3) VAS-neck (P = .13), and (4) VAS-arm (P = .20). Radiology based fusion assessment 6 months postsurgery did not show statistical significance (P = .10). The rates of revision surgery were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed no significant difference in patient-reported outcome measures when comparing the usage of PEEK cage and ICBG in anterior stand alone cervical spine stabilization. Level 1 evidence studies are required to further investigate this finding.

Surgical techniques for degenerative cervical spine in Finland from 1999 to 2015

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to assess the trends and regional variations in the operative techniques used for degenerative or rheumatoid cervical spine disease in Finland between 1999 and 2015.

Methods

The Finnish Hospital Discharge Register (FHDR) was searched for the data on all the primary operations for degenerative cervical spine disease (DCSD) or rheumatoid atlanto-axial subluxation (rAAS). Operative codes were used to identify the patients from the FHDR and combined with diagnosis codes to verify patient inclusion. The patients were classified into three groups: anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), posterior decompression and fusion (PDF) and decompression.

Results

A total of 19,701 primary operations were included. The adjusted incidence of ACDF rose from 6.5 to 27.3 operations/100,000 adults. ACDF became the favoured technique in all the diagnostic groups except AAS, and by 2015, ACDF comprised 84.5% of the operations. The incidence of PDF for DCSD increased from 0.2 to 0.7/100,000 people. Solely decompressive operations declined from 13.7 to 4.0 operations/100,000 people. The regional differences in the incidence of operations were most marked in the incidence of ACDF, with overall incidences ranging from 11.2 to 37.0 operations/100,000. The distribution of the operative techniques used varied as well.

Conclusions

Between 1999 and 2015, the operative techniques used for DCSD changed from prevalently decompressive to utilising ACDF in 68.8 to 91.0% of the operations, depending on the treating hospital. ACDF became the most commonly applied technique for all degenerative diagnoses except AAS.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-019-04026-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical presentation and outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for degenerative cervical disc disease

Background:

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a well-described surgical approach for symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease which does not respond to conservative management. In the present study, we assessed clinical presentation and outcomes of ACDF.

Materials and Methods:

The present study was conducted from October 1, 2015, to October 31, 2017, in the Department of Neurosurgery, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, among 100 consecutive adult patients who underwent single- or two-level ACDF for degenerative cervical disc disease.

Results:

The mean age was 47.2 ± 12.8 years (range: 20–74 years). Majority of the patients were male (86/100). Presenting symptoms were neck pain (77%), limb weakness (73%), paresthesias (53%), radicular pain (49%), stiffness in limbs (16%), and bladder involvement (13%). Fusion was done with stand-alone titanium cage/bone graft or titanium cage/bone graft with anterior cervical plate. At the time of discharge, significant improvement in preoperative symptoms (neck pain [47/77-61%], radicular pain [31/49-63%], limb weakness [53/73-72.6%], paresthesias [44/53-83%], stiffness in limbs [13/16-81%], and bladder symptoms [8/13-61%]) was reported by majority of these patients. Majority of these patients also reported improvement in preoperative sensory deficits at the time of discharge. Postoperative complications were hoarseness of voice (22%), dysphagia (16%), deterioration of motor power (8%), and postoperative hematoma (7%).

Conclusions:

A significant proportion of patients with degenerative cervical disc disease show remarkable recovery after ACDF.

Comparative Study of Functional Outcome of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Interbody Fusion With Tricortical Stand-Alone Iliac Crest Autograft Versus Stand-Alone Polyetheretherketone Cage in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with stand-alone tricortical iliac crest autograft versus stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in cases of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 60 patients in each group were compared.

RESULTS

There was statistically significant improvement noted in postoperative Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (MJOA) follow-up scores with comparison pairs of preoperative versus 6 months, preoperative versus 1 year, and 3 months versus 6 months, 3 months versus 1 year in both groups. But improvements in MJOA scores were statistically insignificant between 6 months and 1 year (P = .0639) for the autograft group when compared with PEEK cage group (P = 0001). The mean loss of segmental lordosis on follow-up X-ray for the autograft group was (5.89 ± 2.90°), which was significantly higher (1.88 ± 2.77°) than the mean loss seen in the PEEK cage group (P = .01). This was most evident between 6 months and 1 year, resulting in plateauing of the improvement in MJOA score between 6 months to 1 year in the autograft group. While there was no statistical difference between fusion rates between the groups for 1 and 2 levels of ACDF, overall fusion rates were significantly better for 1-level ACDF (95.74%) when compared with 2-level ACDF (76.00%).

CONCLUSION

ACDF with PEEK cage is the fusion technique of choice for cervical fusion with fewer complications and better functional recovery in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Correlation of Clinical and Radiological Outcome After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With a Polyetheretherketone Cage

Background

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage is considered as the gold standard for patients with cervical disc disease. However, there are limited in vivo data on the impact of ACDF on the cervical kinematics and its association with patient-reported clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of altered cervical sagittal alignment (cervical lordosis) and sagittal range of motion (ROM) on patients’ self-reported pain and functional disability, after ACDF with a PEEK cage.

Methods

We prospectively studied 74 patients, who underwent single-, or consecutive two-level ACDF with a PEEK interbody cage. The clinical outcomes were assessed by using the pain numeric rating scale (NRS) and the neck disability index (NDI). Radiological outcomes included cervical lordosis and C2-C7 sagittal ROM. The outcome measures were collected preoperatively, at the day of patients’ hospital discharge, and also at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

There was a statistically significant reduction of the NRS and NDI scores postoperatively at each time point (P < 0.005). Cervical lordosis and also ROM significantly reduced until the last follow-up (P < 0.005). There was significant positive correlation between NRS and NDI preoperatively, as well as at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.005). In regard to the ROM and the NDI scores, there was no correlation preoperatively (P = 0.199) or postoperatively (6 months, P = 0.322; 12 months, P = 0.476). Additionally, there was no preoperative (P = 0.134) or postoperative (6 months, P = 0.772; 12 months, P = 0.335) correlation between the NDI scores and cervical lordosis.

Conclusions

In our study, reduction of cervical lordosis and sagittal ROM did not appear to significantly influence on patients’ self-reported disability. Such findings further highlight the greater role of pain level over the mechanical limitations of ACDF with a PEEK cage on patients’ own perceived recovery.

Does pain relief by CT-guided indirect cervical nerve root injection with local anesthetics and steroids predict pain relief after decompression surgery for cervical nerve root compression?

BACKGROUND

The relationship of pain relief from a recently presented CT-guided indirect cervical nerve root injection with local anesthetics and steroids to surgical decompression as a treatment for single-level cervical radiculopathy is not clear. This retrospective study aimed to compare the immediate and 6-week post-injection effects to the short- and long-term outcomes after surgical decompression, specifically in regard to pain relief.

METHODS

Patients (n = 39, age 47 ± 10 years) who had undergone CT-guided indirect injection with local anesthetics and steroids as an initial treatment for single cervical nerve root radiculopathy and who subsequently needed surgical decompression were included retrospectively. Pain levels (VAS scores) were monitored before, immediately after, and 6 weeks after injection (n = 34), as well as 6 weeks (n = 38) and a mean of 25 months (SD ± 12) after surgical decompression (n = 36). Correlation analysis was performed to find potential associations of pain relief after injection and after surgery to investigate the predictive value of post-injection pain relief.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between immediate pain relief after injection (-32 ± 27 %) and 6 weeks later (-7 ± 19 %), (r = -0.023, p = 0.900). There was an association by tendency between immediate pain relief after injection and post-surgical pain relief at 6 weeks (-82 ± 27 %), (r = 0.28, p = 0.08). Pain relief at follow-up remained high at -70 ± 21 % and was correlated with the immediate pain amelioration effect of the injection (r = 0.37, p = 0.032). Five out of seven patients who reported no pain relief from injection had a pain relief from surgery in excess of 50 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of immediate radiculopathic pain relief after indirect cervical nerve root injection is associated with the amount of pain relief achieved at long-term follow-up after surgical decompression of single-level cervical radiculopathy. Patients can still expect sufficient pain relief from surgery even if they did not respond to the cervical infiltration.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) autograft versus graft substitutes: what do patients prefer?-A clinical study

BACKGROUND

Patient dissatisfaction with donor site morbidity has led to the search for alternative grafting options and techniques. This report compares patient satisfaction rates between autograft and graft substitutes for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

This study was performed with the approval of the local area health network ethics committee. Over a 9-year period, the author performed 574 ACDF procedures (697 levels). Of these, 22 patients had previous surgery with autograft, with a subsequent ACDF procedure performed using a graft substitute. Patients rated their satisfaction with pain, recovery, and preference of autograft versus a bone graft substitute. Graft substitutes used include: tricalcium phosphate/hydroxyapatite (TCP/HA) composite and iFactor placed within a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated that 21/22 patients achieved a solid fusion with the graft substitute. A total of 20/22 patients rated the autograft incision more painful than the anterior cervical incision, and 21/22 preferred the graft substitute. Three patients had adjacent segment disc replacement performed after autograft/ACDF. All patients reported preference for the total disc replacement (TDR) procedure in terms of recovery and postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction with bone graft substitutes is very high compared with autograft with all but one (21/22) preferring the graft substitute option. The author questions the traditional recommendation that autograft is the "gold standard" for ACDF. In modern age of graft substitutes, autograft should not be considered the gold standard, but an index option between other options for comparison.

Hybrid Surgery Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in Multilevel Cervical Disc Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

To investigate the outcomes and reliability of hybrid surgery (HS) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis and disc diseases.Hybrid surgery, combining cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) with fusion, is a novel treatment to multilevel cervical degenerated disc disease in recent years. However, the effect and reliability of HS are still unclear compared with ACDF.To investigate the studies of HS versus ACDF in patients with multilevel cervical disease, electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched. Studies were included when they compared HS with ACDF and reported at least one of the following outcomes: functionality, neck pain, arm pain, cervical range of motion (ROM), quality of life, and incidence of complications. No language restrictions were used. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted the relevant data.Seven clinical controlled trials were included in this study. Two trials were prospective and the other 5 were retrospective. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that HS achieved better recovery of NDI score (P = 0.038) and similar recovery of VAS score (P = 0.058) compared with ACDF at 2 years follow-up. Moreover, the total cervical ROM (C2-C7) after HS was preserved significantly more than the cervical ROM after ACDF (P = 0.000) at 2 years follow-up. Notably, the compensatory increase of the ROM of superior and inferior adjacent segments was significant in ACDF groups at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.01), compared with HS.The results demonstrate that HS provides equivalent outcomes and functional recovery for cervical disc diseases, and significantly better preservation of cervical ROM compared with ACDF in 2-year follow-up. This suggests the HS is an effective alternative invention for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis to preserve cervical ROM and reduce the risk of adjacent disc degeneration. Nonetheless, more well-designed studies with large groups of patients are required to provide further evidence for the benefit and reliability of HS for the treatment of cervical disk diseases.

Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Disease: A Review

Anterior cervical spine surgery is an established surgical intervention for cervical degenerative disease and high success rate with excellent long-term outcomes have been reported. However, indications of surgical procedures for certain conditions are still controversial and severe complications to cause neurological dysfunction or deaths may occur. This review is focused mainly on five widely performed procedures by anterior approach for cervical degenerative disease; anterior cervical discectomy, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion, anterior cervical foraminotomy, and arthroplasty. Indications, procedures, outcomes, and complications of these surgeries are discussed.

WITHDRAWN: Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Background

There is ongoing debate about whether fusion or arthroplasty is superior in the treatment of single level cervical degenerative disc disease. Mainly because the intended advantage of arthroplasty over fusion, that is, the prevention of symptoms due to adjacent segment degeneration in the long term, is not confirmed yet. Until sufficient long‐term results become available, it is important to know whether results of one of the two treatments are superior to the other in the first one to two years.

Objectives

To assess the effects of arthroplasty versus fusion for radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both due to single level cervical degenerative disc disease.

Search methods

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBMR. Additionally, we searched the System for Information on Grey Literature (SIGLE), subheading Biological and Medical Sciences, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database on medical devices, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify trials in progress. We also screened the reference list of all selected papers. Date of search: 25 May 2011.

Selection criteria

We included RCTs that directly compared any type of cervical fusion with any type of arthroplasty, with at least one year of follow‐up. Primary outcomes were arm pain, neck pain, neck‐related functional status, patient satisfaction, neurological outcome, and global health status. Secondary outcomes were the presence of (radiological) fusion, revision surgery at the treated level, secondary surgery on adjacent levels, segmental mobility of treated and adjacent levels, and work status.

Data collection and analysis

Study selection was performed independently by three review authors, and 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction were performed by two review authors. In case of missing data or insufficient information for a judgement about risk of bias, we tried to contact the study authors or the study sponsor. The data were entered into RevMan by one review author and subsequently checked by a second review author. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. We analysed heterogeneity and performed sensitivity analyses for the pooled analyses.

Main results

We included nine studies (2400 participants), five of which had a low risk of bias. Eight of these studies were industry sponsored. The most important results showed low‐quality evidence for a small but significant difference in alleviation of arm pain at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (mean difference (MD) ‐1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐2.86 to ‐0.22; 100‐point scale). A small study effect could not be ruled out for this outcome in the sensitivity analyses. This means that smaller studies (or small published subsets of larger studies) showed larger differences for this outcome, which may indicate publication bias. Also, moderate‐quality evidence showed a small difference in neck‐related functional status at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (MD ‐2.79; 95% CI ‐4.73 to ‐0.85; 100‐point scale) and a small difference in neurological outcome in favour of arthroplasty (risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09). These two outcomes were robust to sensitivity analyses. For none of the primary outcomes, was a clinically relevant difference shown. Additionally, there was high‐quality evidence for a large, statistically significant difference in segmental mobility at one to two years (measured as degrees segmental range of motion) at the treated level (MD 6.90; 95% CI 5.45 to 8.35). There was low‐quality evidence that there was no statistically significant difference in secondary surgery at the adjacent levels at one to two years (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.02). The latter was not robust to sensitivity analyses.

Authors' conclusions

There was a tendency for clinical results to be in favour of arthroplasty; often these were statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes. Significance was often gained or lost in the varying sensitivity analyses, probably owing to the relatively small number of studies, in combination with the small differences that were found. Given the fact that all of the included studies were not blinded, this could be due to patient or carer expectations. However, at this time both treatments can be seen as valid options with respect to results at a maximum of one to two years. Given the current absence of truly long‐term results, use of these mobile disc prostheses should still be limited to clinical trials. There was high‐quality evidence that the goal of preservation of segmental mobility in arthroplasty was met. A statistically significant effect on the incidence of secondary symptoms at adjacent levels, the primary goal of arthroplasty over fusion, was not found at one to two years. If there was a protective effect, this should become clearer over time. A future update, when studies with 'truly long‐term' results (five years or more) become available, should focus on this issue.

A herniated disc in the neck often causes radiating pain, numbness, and weakness in muscles of the neck, shoulders, arms, and hands. It may also lead to symptoms in the trunk and legs.

When there is no or insufficient relief of symptoms with non‐surgical treatment, surgery can be an option. Traditional 'fusion' surgery involves fusion of the two bones of the spine (the vertebrae) that form the disc space. Motion between these two vertebrae is then no longer possible.

It has been suggested that this may cause the adjacent parts of the spine to become more mobile, as compensation. This in turn might accelerate normal wear and tear in these parts of the spine, which could lead to new symptoms. At present this is not confirmed.

Mobile disc prostheses have been introduced in an effort to reduce the amount of new symptoms at the longer term after surgery by preserving motion between the vertebrae involved. Long‐term results are not available yet. However, it is important to know whether disc arthroplasty is at least as effective as fusion in relieving symptoms, the primary aim of surgery.

In this review we have searched for all studies in which the patient receives one of these two possible treatments at random.

We identified nine studies (2400 participants), and considered five of these to have high methodological quality. This review shows that patients who were treated with a mobile disc prosthesis had less pain radiating to the arm one to two years after surgery, and less disability owing to these complaints. However, the actual differences were very small, only between 1 and 5 points on a 100‐point scale. The overall quality of the evidence was low to moderate, which means that including new studies in future years could change these conclusions. The conclusion that mobility is in fact preserved after placement of a mobile disc prosthesis, compared to traditional 'fusion' surgery, is unlikely to change. Whether this preserved mobility will lead to fewer new symptoms in the future is uncertain based on results for the first one to two years after surgery.

Therefore, a comparison of results in the long term (five years or more) will be made when more studies with long‐term results have become available.

PEEK cages versus PMMA spacers in anterior cervical discectomy: comparison of fusion, subsidence, sagittal alignment, and clinical outcome with a minimum 1-year follow-up

Purpose. To compare radiographic and clinical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease using PEEK cages or PMMA spacers with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Methods. Anterior cervical discectomy was performed in 107 patients in one or two levels using empty PEEK cages (51 levels), Sulcem PMMA spacers (49 levels) or Palacos PMMA spacers (41 levels) between January, 2005 and February, 2009. Bony fusion, subsidence, and sagittal alignment were retrospectively assessed in CT scans and radiographs at follow-up. Clinical outcome was measured using the VAS, NDI, and SF-36. Results. Bony fusion was assessed in 65% (PEEK cage), 57% (Sulcem), and 46% (Palacos) after a mean follow-up of 2.5 years. Mean subsidence was 2.3–2.6 mm without significant differences between the groups. The most pronounced loss of lordosis was found in PEEK cages (−4.1°). VAS was 3.1 (PEEK cage), 3.6 (Sulcem), and 2.7 (Palacos) without significant differences. Functional outcome in the PEEK cage and Palacos group was superior to the Sulcem group. Conclusions. The substitute groups showed differing fusion rates. Clinical outcome, however, appears to be generally not correlated with fusion status or subsidence. We could not specify a superior disc substitute for anterior cervical discectomy. This trial is registered with DRKS00003591.

"White cord syndrome" of acute tetraplegia after anterior cervical decompression and fusion for chronic spinal cord compression: a case report

Paralysis is the most feared postoperative complication of ACDF and occurs most often due to an epidural hematoma. In the absence of a clear etiology, inadequate decompression or vascular insult such as ischemia/reperfusion injury are the usual suspects. Herewith we report a case of complete loss of somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) during elective ACDF at C4-5 and C5-6 followed by postoperative C6 incomplete tetraplegia without any discernible technical cause. A postoperative MRI demonstrated a large area of high signal changes on T2-weighted MRI intrinsic to the cord "white cord syndrome" but no residual compression. This was considered consistent with spinal cord gliosis with possible acute edema. The acute decompression of the herniated disc resulted in cord expansion and rush-in reperfusion. We postulate that this may have led to disruption in the blood brain barrier (BBB) and triggered a cascade of reperfusion injuries resulting in acute neurologic dysfunction. At 16 months postoperatively our patient is recovering slowly and is now a Nurick Grade 4.

Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate about whether fusion or arthroplasty is superior in the treatment of single level cervical degenerative disc disease. Mainly because the intended advantage of arthroplasty over fusion, that is, the prevention of symptoms due to adjacent segment degeneration in the long term, is not confirmed yet. Until sufficient long-term results become available, it is important to know whether results of one of the two treatments are superior to the other in the first one to two years.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of arthroplasty versus fusion for radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both due to single level cervical degenerative disc disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBMR. Additionally, we searched the System for Information on Grey Literature (SIGLE), subheading Biological and Medical Sciences, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database on medical devices, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify trials in progress. We also screened the reference list of all selected papers. Date of search: 25 May 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that directly compared any type of cervical fusion with any type of arthroplasty, with at least one year of follow-up. Primary outcomes were arm pain, neck pain, neck-related functional status, patient satisfaction, neurological outcome, and global health status. Secondary outcomes were the presence of (radiological) fusion, revision surgery at the treated level, secondary surgery on adjacent levels, segmental mobility of treated and adjacent levels, and work status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection was performed independently by three review authors, and 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction were performed by two review authors. In case of missing data or insufficient information for a judgement about risk of bias, we tried to contact the study authors or the study sponsor. The data were entered into RevMan by one review author and subsequently checked by a second review author. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. We analysed heterogeneity and performed sensitivity analyses for the pooled analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies (2400 participants), five of which had a low risk of bias. Eight of these studies were industry sponsored. The most important results showed low-quality evidence for a small but significant difference in alleviation of arm pain at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (mean difference (MD) -1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.86 to -0.22; 100-point scale). A small study effect could not be ruled out for this outcome in the sensitivity analyses. This means that smaller studies (or small published subsets of larger studies) showed larger differences for this outcome, which may indicate publication bias. Also, moderate-quality evidence showed a small difference in neck-related functional status at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (MD -2.79; 95% CI -4.73 to -0.85; 100-point scale) and a small difference in neurological outcome in favour of arthroplasty (risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09). These two outcomes were robust to sensitivity analyses. For none of the primary outcomes, was a clinically relevant difference shown. Additionally, there was high-quality evidence for a large, statistically significant difference in segmental mobility at one to two years (measured as degrees segmental range of motion) at the treated level (MD 6.90; 95% CI 5.45 to 8.35). There was low-quality evidence that there was no statistically significant difference in secondary surgery at the adjacent levels at one to two years (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.02). The latter was not robust to sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a tendency for clinical results to be in favour of arthroplasty; often these were statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes. Significance was often gained or lost in the varying sensitivity analyses, probably owing to the relatively small number of studies, in combination with the small differences that were found. Given the fact that all of the included studies were not blinded, this could be due to patient or carer expectations. However, at this time both treatments can be seen as valid options with respect to results at a maximum of one to two years. Given the current absence of truly long-term results, use of these mobile disc prostheses should still be limited to clinical trials. There was high-quality evidence that the goal of preservation of segmental mobility in arthroplasty was met. A statistically significant effect on the incidence of secondary symptoms at adjacent levels, the primary goal of arthroplasty over fusion, was not found at one to two years. If there was a protective effect, this should become clearer over time. A future update, when studies with 'truly long-term' results (five years or more) become available, should focus on this issue.

Iliac crest autograft versus alternative constructs for anterior cervical spine surgery: Pros, cons, and costs

Background:

Grafting choices available for performing anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) procedures have become a major concern for spinal surgeons, and their institutions. The “gold standard”, iliac crest autograft, may still be the best and least expensive grafting option; it deserves to be reassessed along with the pros, cons, and costs for alternative grafts/spacers.

Methods:

Although single or multilevel ACDF have utilized iliac crest autograft for decades, the implant industry now offers multiple alternative grafting and spacer devices; (allografts, cages, polyether-etherketone (PEEK) amongst others). While most studies have focused on fusion rates and clinical outcomes following ACDF, few have analyzed the “value-added” of these various constructs (e.g. safety/efficacy, risks/complications, costs).

Results:

The majority of studies document 95%-100% fusion rates when iliac crest autograft is utilized to perform single level ACDF (X-ray or CT confirmed at 6-12 postoperative months). Although many allograft studies similarly quote 90%-100% fusion rates (X-ray alone confirmed at 6-12 postoperative months), a recent “post hoc analysis of data from a prospective multicenter trial” (Riew KD et. al., CSRS Abstract Dec. 2011; unpublished) revealed a much higher delayed fusion rate using allografts at one year 55.7%, 2 years 87%, and four years 92%.

Conclusion:

Iliac crest autograft utilized for single or multilevel ACDF is associated with the highest fusion, lowest complication rates, and significantly lower costs compared with allograft, cages, PEEK, or other grafts. As spinal surgeons and institutions become more cost conscious, we will have to account for the “value added” of these increasingly expensive graft constructs.

Iliac crest reconstruction to reduce donor-site morbidity: technical note

The design of the study includes case series, technical note and review of the literature. Autogenous bone graft (autograft) harvest from the iliac crest remains the gold standard substrate for spinal fusion. Persistent donor-site pain is the most common cause of morbidity after autograft harvest, occurring in one-third of patients. Numerous techniques for reducing donor-site morbidity have been reported in the literature, including infusion of analgesics and post-harvest reconstruction of the iliac crest with ceramics, allograft or bone morphogenic protein. A case series of patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery is reported. All patients were treated with iliac crest reconstruction using Calcium Phosphate Cement and follow-up data of persistent donor-site pain was collected. Twelve patients underwent autograft harvest with iliac spine reconstruction using Calcium Phosphate Cement. 42% (5) had persistent donor-site pain (after 3 months). All pain scores were less than or equal to 2 out of 10 (mean 1.25). In conclusion, iliac spine reconstruction using Calcium Phosphate Cement following autogenous bone graft harvest is a relatively simple procedure which failed to decrease the incidence of donor-site morbidity in our patient population.