ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Efficacy of an allograft cellular bone matrix as an alternative to autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: radiological results & safety.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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.
- Do Cellular Allografts Improve Spinal Fusion Enough to Justify Their Cost and Potential Risk? A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Cost.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Review
- A single-arm retrospective feasibility study of biphasic calcium phosphate bone graft with submicron surface topography in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures 6 months postoperative.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- A retrospective comparative analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone titanium cage versus cage and plate fixation in two-level cervical disc herniation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Impact of surgical timing on the outcomes of traumatic cervical spinal cord injury.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The predominant surgical procedure employed for patients with symptomatic cervical radiculopathy is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). ACDF typically involves the use of an interbody cage augmented with iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) or local autograft to enhance fusion rate. Substantial complications can arise from autograft use, including donor site morbidity, difficulties with ambulation, and diminished quality of life. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of an allograft cellular bone matrix (ACBM) as an osteopromotive bone, in ACDF procedures. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, consecutive case series included 73 patients who underwent an ACDF procedure. The surgical procedure involved the placement of an interbody cage supplemented with anterior plate fixation and an ACBM within the interbody spacer. Patient charts were reviewed to gather demographic information, radiographic findings, as well as perioperative and post-operative complications. Radiographic fusion was assessed at 6 and 12 months by a blinded, musculoskeletal-trained radiologist and a board-certified spinal surgeon reviewer. Any discrepancies were settled by a third, senior reviewer. Complete fusion was defined as: evidence of bridging bone across the disc space on CT, angular motion <3 degrees, and translational motion <2 mm on lateral radiographs. Complications were analyzed at 6, 12, and 15+ months post-operatively to assess clinical outcomes and device performance. Results: A total of 73 patients (50 males, 23 females) with an average age of 54.6 (range, 31-77) years underwent an ACDF procedure between C3-T1 with an ACBM. The breakdown of levels operated on was 26%, 32%, 34%, and 8% for one, two, three, and four level procedures, respectively. There were three patients who received spinal injections for pain within the first year post-operatively. There were two patients who required secondary surgery within the first 12 months where supplemental posterior hardware was needed. Notably, there were no instances of cage subsidence, cage migration, cage/graft removal, or reoperation. There were no cases of chronic dysphasia. At 6 months, 45% of patients with available imaging demonstrated complete fusion, while 97.4% of patients with available imaging demonstrated complete fusion at 12 months. Conclusions: At the 12-month follow-up, our study demonstrates a high fusion rate in a real-world population of up to 4 operative levels. There were no bone graft related complications or incidences of cage migration/subsidence. It is noteworthy that the study involved a significant number of multilevel cases (74% of cases). Despite this, our results align with historical fusion rates and provide support for the utilization of ACBMs as a fusion adjunct in ACDF procedures up to 4 levels.
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.