ReviewGlobal spine journal2024
What Is the Evidence Surrounding the Cost-Effectiveness of Osteobiologic Use in ACDF Surgery? A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Review in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is a central cavity necessary for bioactive glass-ceramic spacers in plated ACDF? A retrospective comparison of solid versus cavity designs.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Osteobiologics in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using allograft cellular bone matrix.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- What Graft Should Be Used in Pediatric Posterior Spinal Fusion? Current Trends and Perspective Among Experts.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Novel autograft bone harvesting device used in 232 consecutive patients who underwent cervical or lumbar fusion: initial experience, outcome, and cost analysis in a retrospective study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Osteobiologics and Value-Based Care: Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designThis study constitutes a systematic review of the literature.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify and present all available studies that report on the costs of osteobiologics used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
methodsThe literature was systematically reviewed to identify studies with specific inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials and observational studies, (2) in adult patients, (3) with herniated disc(s) or degenerative cervical spine disease, (4) reporting on either direct or indirect costs of using specific osteobiologics in an ACDF operation. (5) Only studies in English were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS and RoB 2.0 tools.
resultsOverall, 14 articles were included; one randomized controlled trial and 13 observational studies. The most commonly used osteobiologics other than autograft/iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) were allograft and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). None of the studies was reported to be industry-supported. There was considerable heterogeneity on the reported costs. Overall, most studies reported on surgery-related costs, such as anesthesia, operating room, surgical materials and surgeon's fee. Only two studies, both using allograft, reported the exact cost of the osteobiologic used (450 GBP, $700). Some of the studies reported on the cost of care during hospitalization for the surgical operation, such as radiology studies, emergency room costs, cardiologic evaluation, laboratory studies, pharmacy costs, and room costs. Only a few studies reported on the cost of follow-up, reoperation, and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
conclusionBased on the data of this current systematic review, no recommendations can be made regarding the cost-effectiveness of using osteobiologics in ACDF. Given the high costs of osteobiologics, this remains a topic of importance. The design of future studies on the subject should include cost effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.