Arun-Kumar Viswanadha, Corluka Stipe, Buser Zorica, Wu Yabin, El-Sharkawi Mohammad, Carazzo Charles André, Ponugoti Nikhil, Wang Jeffrey C, Meisel Hans Jörg
Reva Spine Centre, Visakhapatnam, India.
Spinal Surgery Division, Department of Traumatology, University Hospital Centre Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia.
Global Spine J. 2024 Feb;14(2_suppl):24S-33S. doi: 10.1177/21925682231188626.
Systematic Review of the Literature.
The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review describing fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using autograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials.
A systematic review limited to the English language was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane library using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Studies that evaluated fusion after ACDF using autografts and osteobiologics combined with PEEK, carbon fibre, or metal cages were searched for. Articles in full text that met the criteria were included in the review. The main outcomes evaluated were the time taken to merge, the definition of the fusion assessment, and the modality of the fusion assessment. The risk of bias of each article was assessed by the MINORS score or ROB 2.0 depending on the randomisation process.
The total number of references reviewed was six hundred and eighty-two. After applying the inclusion criteria, 54 were selected for the retrieval of the full text. Eight studies were selected and included for final analysis in this study. Fusion rates were reported between 83.3% and 100% for autograft groups compared to 46.5% and 100% for various interbody device/osteobiological combinations. The overall quality of the evidence in all radiographic fusion studies was considered insufficient due to a serious risk of bias.
Mechanical interbody devices augmented with osteobiologics performed similarly to autografts in terms of reliability and efficacy. Their time to fusion and fusion rate were comparable to autografts at the end of the final follow-up.
文献系统综述。
本研究旨在进行一项系统综述,描述使用自体骨移植与各种椎间融合器并添加不同骨生物材料的颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)的融合率。
在Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆中使用医学主题词(MeSH)术语进行仅限于英文的系统综述。检索评估使用自体骨移植和骨生物材料联合聚醚醚酮(PEEK)、碳纤维或金属融合器进行ACDF术后融合情况的研究。符合标准的全文文章纳入综述。评估的主要结果包括融合所需时间、融合评估的定义以及融合评估方式。根据随机化过程,通过MINORS评分或ROB 2.0评估每篇文章的偏倚风险。
共检索到682篇参考文献。应用纳入标准后,选择54篇进行全文检索。本研究最终纳入8项研究进行分析。自体骨移植组的融合率报告为83.3%至100%,而各种椎间融合器/骨生物材料组合的融合率为46.5%至100%。由于存在严重的偏倚风险,所有影像学融合研究的总体证据质量被认为不足。
添加骨生物材料的机械椎间融合器在可靠性和有效性方面与自体骨移植表现相似。在最终随访结束时,它们的融合时间和融合率与自体骨移植相当。