Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35345686›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Allograft Versus Autograft in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Evelyn Ouro-Rodrigues, Anirudh K Gowd, Omar Ramos Williams, Peter B Derman, Siamak Yasmeh, Wayne K Cheng, Olumide Danisa, Joseph N Liu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Construct length rather than interbody spacer material is associated with reoperation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Case report: Tuberculosis recall on bone graft patient.North American Spine Society journal · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Evelyn Ouro-RodriguesOrthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, USA.
Anirudh K GowdOrthopedic Surgery, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston Salem, USA.
Omar Ramos WilliamsOrthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, USA.
Peter B DermanSpine Surgery, Texas Back Institute, Plano, USA.
Siamak YasmehOrthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, USA.
Wayne K ChengOrthopedics, Jerry L. Pettis VA Medical Center, Loma Linda, USA.
Olumide DanisaOrthopedic Spine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, USA.
Joseph N LiuOrthopedic Surgery, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA.
Loma Linda University · USLoma Linda University Medical Center · USAtrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · USJerry L. Pettis Memorial VA Medical Center · USTexas Back Institute · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective To compare the 30-day complication rate associated with allograft versus autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and to determine preoperative factors that may influence complication rate. Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was retrospectively queried from 2014 to 2017 for all procedures with CPT codes for ACDF (22551). Patients undergoing ACDF with either autograft or allograft were matched by propensity scores based on age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities. The incidence of adverse events in the 30-day postoperative period was compared. Results A total of 21,588 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the 10:1 propensity match, 17,061 remained in the study (1,551 autograft and 15,510 allograft). The overall adverse event rate was 3.18%; 3.48% for autograft and 3.15% for allograft (P=0.494). Autograft had a significantly greater incidence of extended length of stay (>2 d) (LOS) (48.9% vs 34.8%; P<0.001). Multivariate analysis suggested that autograft selection was associated with extended LOS (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3-1.5). Conclusion The results of this study provide information regarding how graft selection can relate to extended hospital LOS and influence postoperative complications. Extended LOS may be associated with worse patient outcomes and increase the overall cost of care. Further study should be performed to determine which patients would benefit from autograft versus allograft with regards to long-term outcomes, in consideration of these increased short-term complications.

Indexed as

allograftautograftcomplicationsdiscectomylength of stayquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID35345686
PMCPMC8956488
OpenAlexW4213168571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.