Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion : A Systematic Review
| Content Provider | SAGE Publishing |
|---|---|
| Author | Tuchman, Alexander Brodke, Darrel S. Youssef, Jim A. Meisel, Hans-Jörg Dettori, Joseph R. Park, Jong-Beom Yoon, S. Tim Wang, Jeffrey C. |
| Abstract | Study DesignSystematic review.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), non-ICBG autologous bone, and allograft in cervical spine fusion. To avoid problems at the donor site, various allograft materials have been used as a substitute for autograft. However, there are still questions as to the comparative effectiveness and safety of cadaver allograft compared with autologous ICBG.MethodsA systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies evaluating spinal fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disk disease using ICBG compared with non-ICBG autograft or allograft or non-ICBG autograft compared with allograft in the cervical spine. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. Adverse events were evaluated for safety.ResultsThe search identified 13 comparative studies that met our inclusion criteria: 2 prospective cohort studies and 11 retrospective cohort studies. Twelve cohort studies compared allograft with ICBG autograft during anterior cervical fusion and demonstrated with a low evidence level of support that there are no differences in fusion percentages, pain scores, or functional results. There was insufficient evidence comparing patients receiving allograft with non-ICBG autograft for fusion, pain, revision, and functional and safety outcomes. No publications directly comparing non-ICBG autograft with ICBG were found.ConclusionAlthough the available literature suggests ICBG and allograft may have similar effectiveness in terms of fusion rates, pain scores, and functional outcomes following anterior cervical fusion, there are too many limitations in the available literature to draw any significant conclusions. No individual study provided greater than class III evidence, and when evaluating the overall body of literature, no conclusion had better than low evidence support. A prospective randomized trial with adequate sample size to compare fusion rates, efficacy measures, costs, and safety is warranted. |
| Related Links | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1055/s-0036-1580610?download=true |
| Starting Page | 59 |
| Ending Page | 70 |
| Page Count | 12 |
| ISSN | 21925682 |
| Issue Number | 1 |
| Volume Number | 7 |
| Journal | Global Spine Journal (GSJ) |
| e-ISSN | 21925690 |
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0036-1580610 |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Sage Publications CA |
| Publisher Date | 2017-04-03 |
| Publisher Place | Los Angeles |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Rights Holder | © Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
| Subject Keyword | allograft cervical spine surgery autograft fusion autologous iliac crest bone graft systemic review |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
| Subject | Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Neurology (clinical) Surgery |
