ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
Comparison of Different Osteobiologics in Terms of Imaging Modalities and Time Frames for Fusion Assessment 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery: a review.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review.
objectivesThe study's primary objective was to determine how osteobiologic choice affects fusion rates in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The study's secondary objectives were to 1) determine the optimal timing of fusion assessment following ACDF and 2) determine if osteobiologic type affects the timing and optimal modality of fusion assessment.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for literature published from 2000 through October 2020 comparing anterior fusion in the cervical spine with various osteobiologics. Both comparative studies and case series of ≥10 patients were included.
resultsA total of 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies evaluated the efficacy of autograft on fusion outcomes, and 23 studies assessed the efficacy of allograft on fusion outcomes. 3 studies evaluated the efficacy of demineralized bone matrix, and seven assessed the efficacy of rhBMP-2 on fusion outcomes. Other limited studies evaluated the efficacy of ceramics and bioactive glasses on fusion outcomes, and 4 assessed the efficacy of stem cell products. Most studies utilized dynamic radiographs for the assessment of fusion. Overall, there was a general lack of supportive data to determine the optimal timing of fusion assessment meaningfully or if osteobiologic type influenced fusion timing.
conclusionsAchieving fusion following ACDF appears to remain an intricate interplay between host biology and various surgical factors, including the selection of osteobiologics. While alternative osteobiologics to autograft exist and may produce acceptable fusion rates, limitations in study methodology prevent any definitive conclusions from existing literature.
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.