Goldberg Jacob L, Meaden Ross M, Hussain Ibrahim, Gadjradj Pravesh S, Quraishi Danyal, Sommer Fabian, Carnevale Joseph A, Medary Branden, Wright Drew, Riew K Daniel, Hartl Roger
Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York Presbyterian. New York, New York, USA.
Department of Library Information Technologies and Services, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Brain Spine. 2022 Aug 22;2:100923. doi: 10.1016/j.bas.2022.100923. eCollection 2022.
INTRODUCTION: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common procedure to address cervical spine pathology. The most common grafts used are titanium, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or structural allograft. Comparison of fusion rate is difficult due to non-standardized methods of assessment. We stratified studies by method of fusion assessment and performed a systematic review of fusion rates for titanium, PEEK, and allograft. RESEARCH QUESTION: Which of the common implants used in ACDF has the highest reported rate of fusion? MATERIALS AND METHODS: An experienced librarian performed a five-database systematic search for published articles between 01/01/1990 and 08/07/2021. Studies performed in adults with at least 1 year of radiographic follow up were included. The primary outcome was the rate of fusion. Fusion criteria were stratified into 6 classes based upon best practices. RESULTS: 34 studies met inclusion criteria. 10 studies involving 924 patients with 1094 cervical levels, used tier 1 fusion criteria and 6 studies (309 patients and 367 levels) used tier 2 fusion criteria. Forty seven percent of the studies used class 3-6 fusion criteria and were not included in the analysis. Fusion rates did differ between titanium (avg. 87.3%, range 84%-100%), PEEK (avg. 92.8%, range 62%-100%), and structural allograft (avg. 94.67%, range 82%-100%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: After stratifying studies by fusion criteria, significant heterogeneity in study design and fusion assessment prohibited the performance of a meta-analysis. Fusion rate did not differ by graft type. Important surgical goals aside from fusion rate, such as degree of deformity correction, could not be assessed. Future studies with standardized high-quality methods of assessing fusion, are required.
引言:颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)是治疗颈椎疾病的常见手术。最常用的移植物是钛、聚醚醚酮(PEEK)或结构性同种异体移植物。由于评估方法不标准化,融合率的比较很困难。我们根据融合评估方法对研究进行分层,并对钛、PEEK和同种异体移植物的融合率进行了系统评价。 研究问题:ACDF中使用的常见植入物中,哪一种报告的融合率最高? 材料与方法:一位经验丰富的图书馆员对1990年1月1日至2021年8月7日期间发表的文章进行了五数据库系统检索。纳入对成年人进行的、至少有1年影像学随访的研究。主要结局是融合率。根据最佳实践,融合标准分为6类。 结果:34项研究符合纳入标准。10项研究涉及924例患者的1094个颈椎节段,采用1级融合标准,6项研究(309例患者和367个节段)采用2级融合标准。47%的研究使用3-6级融合标准,未纳入分析。钛(平均87.3%,范围84%-100%)、PEEK(平均92.8%,范围62%-100%)和结构性同种异体移植物(平均94.67%,范围82%-100%)之间的融合率确实存在差异。 讨论与结论:按融合标准对研究进行分层后,研究设计和融合评估中的显著异质性妨碍了荟萃分析的进行。融合率不因移植物类型而异。除融合率外,其他重要的手术目标,如畸形矫正程度,无法评估。需要采用标准化的高质量融合评估方法进行未来研究。
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2024-9-1
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023-5-27
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018-12-12