ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic Literature Review.
objectivePerform a systematic review evaluating postoperative fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials.
methodsComprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed. Included studies were those that reported results of 1-4 levels ACDF using pure structural allograft compared with a mechanical interbody device augmented with an osteobiologic. Excluded studies were those that reported on ACDF with cervical corpectomy; anterior and posterior cervical fusions; circumferential (360° or 540°) fusion or revision ACDF for nonunion or other conditions. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane review guidelines.
results8 articles reporting fusion rates of structural allograft and an interbody device/osteobiologic pair were included. All included studies compared fusion rates following ACDF among structural allograft vs non-allograft interbody device/osteobiologic pairs. Fusion rates were reported between 84% and 100% for structural allograft, while fusion rates for various interbody device/osteobiologic combinations ranged from 26% to 100%. Among non-allograft cage groups fusion rates varied from 73-100%. One study found PEEK cages filled with combinations of autograft, allograft, and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) to have an overall fusion rate of 26%. In one study comparing plate and zero-profile constructs, there was no difference in fusion rates for two-level fusions.
conclusionThere was limited data comparing fusion outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF using structural allograft vs interbody devices augmented with osteobiologic materials to support superiority of one method.
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.