A Canadian perspective on anterior cervical discectomies: practice patterns and preferences

Anterior cervical decompression and fusion at one and two levels: trends and factors associated with structural allograft versus synthetic cages

Background

Following decompression in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), reconstruction is typically done with structural allograft or a synthetic cage. Relative trends and factors associated with utilizing these implants have not been well characterized.

Methods

The PearlDiver 2011 to 2021 M157 database was used to identify adult patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDF. The incidence of structural allograft versus synthetic cage utilized was compared by year. Patient factors predictive of synthetic cage use as the structural interbody for ACDF were assessed with multivariable analysis. Further, the use of anterior plates was trended to provide a measure of usage of stand-alone devices (this comparison was made beginning with 2016 based on coding limitations).

Results

Of 173,833 isolated 1- or 2-level ACDF cases identified, structural allograft was used for 63,029 (36.3%) and synthetic cages were used for 110,804 (63.8%). The use of synthetic cages increased from 51.1% of cases in 2011 to 75.8% of cases in 2021 (p < 0.0001). Independent clinical predictors of synthetic cage use were: older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 per decade), female sex (OR 1.04), and greater ECI (OR 1.09 per 2-point increase).Independent non-clinical predictors of synthetic cage use were: geographic region (Northeast OR 1.11, South OR 1.85, and West 2.08, each relative to Midwest), and provider specialty (orthopedic OR 1.06 relative to neurosurgeons). There was an increase in the percent of synthetic cases without separately coded plate ("stand-alone" interbody cages: 21.7% in 2016 to 35.3% in 2021, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The usage of synthetic cages in 1- and 2- level ACDF has increased relative to structural allograft between 2011 and 2021 in the United States and more recently the use of "stand-alone" synthetic cages has been on the rise. Non-clinical as well as clinical factors were associated with implant choice, suggesting room for more consistent care algorithms.

Hard collar immobilisation following elective surgery on the cervical spine: a cross-sectional survey of UK spinal surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Although mostly used in the management of spinal trauma, hard collar immobilisation is also used as an adjunct to recovery after elective cervical spine surgery. Many surgeons believe that bracing reduces the risk of non-union and pain and provides a subjective sense of security for patients. There is little if any, evidence for this practice and immobilisation can be a direct cause of adverse events. The primary aim of this study was to provide an updated assessment of post-operative bracing practice in UK spinal surgeons, including the indications, rationale and perspectives on compliance and complications.

METHODS

Neurosurgeons and spinal orthopaedic surgeons completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS) and the British Association of Spinal Surgeons (BASS). Professional information captured included level of experience and whether surgeons had a specialist interest in spinal surgery. Questions first focused on the frequency and duration of hard collar immobilisation for common decompressive procedures. Later questions captured surgeon rationale, perceptions of patient compliance, complications, and collar removal.

RESULTS

A total of 86 surgeons completed the survey, of whom 83% were spinal specialists. In total, 33 (38%) surgeons recommend a hard collar following at least one of the elective procedures listed. Collars were most commonly recommended following cervical corpectomy (30%). The support of fusion and bone healing was the most common rationale (82%), with post-operative pain (45%) and limiting patient activity (39%) also considered. Most surgeons (69%) believed that their patients were compliant. All listed types of complications were reported, with impaired activities of daily living (41%) and impaired sleep (34%) the most frequently cited.

CONCLUSIONS

Current post-operative use of hard collars is much lower in the United Kingdom than previously reported in the United States. Surgeon decision-making is inconsistent and may benefit from greater standardisation. Future work is needed to help develop guidelines as a move away from arbitrary to evidence-based practice.