scholarly journals Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Interbody Cage for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparison of 1-Year Outcomes From a National Database

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822094221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nandakumar Menon ◽  
Justin Turcotte ◽  
Chad Patton
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Research Network ◽  
National Database ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Implant Selection

Study Design: Observational cohort study. Objective: To compare 1-year perioperative complications between structural allograft (SA) and synthetic cage (SC) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a national database. Methods: The TriNetX Research Network was retrospectively queried. Patients undergoing initial single or multilevel ACDF surgery between October 1, 2015 and April 30, 2019 were propensity score matched based on age and comorbidities. The rates of 1-year revision ACDF surgery and reported diagnoses of pseudoarthrosis, surgical site infection (SSI), and dysphagia were compared between structural allograft and synthetic cage techniques. Results: A comparison of 1-year outcomes between propensity score matched cohorts was conducted on 3056 patients undergoing single-level ACDF and 3510 patients undergoing multilevel ACDF. In single-level ACDF patients, there was no difference in 1-year revision ACDF surgery ( P = .573), reported diagnoses of pseudoarthrosis ( P = .413), SSI ( P = .620), or dysphagia ( P = .529) between SA and SC groups. In multilevel ACDF patients, there was a higher rate of revision surgery (SA 3.8% vs SC 7.3%, odds ratio = 1.982, P < .001) in the SC group, and a higher rate of dysphagia in the SA group (SA 15.9% vs SC 12.9%). Conclusion: While the overall revision and complication rate for single-level ACDF remains low despite interbody graft selection, SC implant selection may result in higher rates of revision surgery in multilevel procedures despite yielding lower rates of dysphagia. Further prospective study is warranted.

scholarly journals Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed using structural allograft or polyetheretherketone: pseudarthrosis and revision surgery rates with minimum 2-year follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-569
Author(s):  
Minghao Wang ◽  
Dean Chou ◽  
Chih-Chang Chang ◽  
Ankit Hirpara ◽  
Yilin Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Anterior Plate ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Posterior Surgery ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Surgery Rates

OBJECTIVEBoth structural allograft and PEEK have been used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There are reports that PEEK has a higher pseudarthrosis rate than structural allograft. The authors compared pseudarthrosis, revision, subsidence, and loss of lordosis rates in patients with PEEK and structural allograft.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with ACDF at their hospital between 2005 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with either PEEK or structural allograft, anterior plate fixation, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were hybrid PEEK and allograft cases, additional posterior surgery, adjacent corpectomies, infection, tumor, stand-alone or integrated screw and cage devices, bone morphogenetic protein use, or lack of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographic variables, number of treated levels, interbody type (PEEK cage vs structural allograft), graft packing material, pseudarthrosis rates, revision surgery rates, subsidence, and cervical lordosis changes were collected. These data were analyzed by Pearson’s chi-square test (or Fisher’s exact test, according to the sample size and expected value) and Student t-test.RESULTSA total of 168 patients (264 levels total, mean follow-up time 39.5 ± 24.0 months) were analyzed. Sixty-one patients had PEEK, and 107 patients had structural allograft. Pseudarthrosis rates for 1-level fusions were 5.4% (PEEK) and 3.4% (allograft) (p > 0.05); 2-level fusions were 7.1% (PEEK) and 8.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05); and ≥ 3-level fusions were 10% (PEEK) and 11.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the subsidence magnitude between PEEK and allograft in 1-, 2-, and ≥ 3-level ACDF (p > 0.05). Postoperative lordosis loss was not different between cohorts for 1- and 2-level surgeries.CONCLUSIONSIn 1- and 2-level ACDF with plating involving the same number of fusion levels, there was no statistically significant difference in the pseudarthrosis rate, revision surgery rate, subsidence, and lordosis loss between PEEK cages and structural allograft.

scholarly journals PEEK interbody devices for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: association with more than 6-fold higher rates of pseudarthrosis compared to structural allograft

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 696-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe E. Teton ◽  
Barry Cheaney ◽  
James T. Obayashi ◽  
Khoi D. Than
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Tobacco Use ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Radiographic Evidence ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Structural Allograft

OBJECTIVECommon interbody graft options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) include allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PEEK has gained popularity due to its radiolucent properties and a modulus of elasticity similar to that of bone. PEEK devices also result in higher billing costs than allograft, which may drive selection. A previous study found a 5-fold higher rate of pseudarthrosis with the use of PEEK devices compared with structural allograft in single-level ACDF. Here the authors report on the occurrence of pseudarthrosis with PEEK devices versus structural allograft in patients who underwent multilevel ACDF.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed 81 consecutive patients who underwent a multilevel ACDF and had radiographic follow-up for at least 1 year. Data were collected on age, sex, BMI, tobacco use, pseudarthrosis, and rate of reoperation for pseudarthrosis. Logistic regression was used for data analysis.RESULTSOf 81 patients, 35 had PEEK implants and 46 had structural allograft. There were no significant differences between age, sex, smoking status, or BMI in the 2 groups. There were 26/35 (74%) patients with PEEK implants who demonstrated radiographic evidence of pseudarthrosis, compared with 5/46 (11%) patients with structural allograft (p < 0.001, OR 22.2). Five patients (14%) with PEEK implants required reoperation for pseudarthrosis, compared with 0 patients with allograft (p = 0.013).CONCLUSIONSThis study reinforces previous findings on 1-level ACDF outcomes and suggests that the use of PEEK in multilevel ACDF results in statistically significantly higher rates of radiographic pseudarthrosis and need for revision surgery than allograft. Surgeons should consider these findings when determining graft options, and reimbursement policies should reflect these discrepancies.

scholarly journals Fivefold higher rate of pseudarthrosis with polyetheretherketone interbody device than with structural allograft used for 1-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie L. Krause ◽  
James T. Obayashi ◽  
Kelly J. Bridges ◽  
Ahmed M. Raslan ◽  
Khoi D. Than
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Tobacco Use ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Bone Growth ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Significant Difference

OBJECTIVECommon interbody graft options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) include structural allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PEEK has gained popularity due to its radiolucency and its elastic modulus, which is similar to that of bone. The authors sought to compare the rates of pseudarthrosis, a lack of solid bone growth across the disc space, and the need for revision surgery with the use of grafts made of allogenic bone versus PEEK.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed 127 cases in which patients had undergone a 1-level ACDF followed by at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. Data on age, sex, body mass index, tobacco use, pseudarthrosis, and the reoperation rate for pseudarthrosis were collected. These data were analyzed by performing a Pearson’s chi-square test.RESULTSOf 127 patients, 56 had received PEEK implants and 71 had received allografts. Forty-six of the PEEK implants (82%) were stand-alone devices. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups with respect to patient age, sex, or body mass index. Twenty-nine (52%) of 56 patients with PEEK implants demonstrated radiographic evidence of pseudarthrosis, compared to 7 (10%) of 71 patients with structural allografts (p < 0.001, OR 9.82; 95% CI 3.836–25.139). Seven patients with PEEK implants required reoperation for pseudarthrosis, compared to 1 patient with an allograft (p = 0.01, OR 10.00; 95% CI 1.192–83.884). There was no significant difference in tobacco use between the PEEK and allograft groups (p = 0.586).CONCLUSIONSThe results of this study demonstrate that the use of PEEK devices in 1-level ACDF is associated with a significantly higher rate of radiographically demonstrated pseudarthrosis and need for revision surgery compared with the use of allografts. Surgeons should be aware of this when deciding on interbody graft options, and reimbursement policies should reflect these discrepancies.

The influence of social determinants of health on single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion outcomes

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Postoperative Complication ◽  
Social Determinants Of Health ◽  
Social Determinants ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Determinants Of Health ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Single Level

OBJECTIVE Methods of reducing complications in individuals electing to undergo anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) rely upon understanding at-risk patient populations, among other factors. This study aims to investigate the interplay between social determinants of health (SDOH) and postoperative complication rates, length of stay, revision surgery, and rates of postoperative readmission at 30 and 90 days in individuals electing to have single-level ACDF. METHODS Using MARINER30, a database that contains claims information from all payers, patients were identified who underwent single-level ACDF between 2010 and 2019. Identification of patients experiencing disparities in 1 of 6 categories of SDOH was completed using ICD-9 and ICD-10 (International Classifications of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions) codes. The population was propensity matched into 2 cohorts based on comorbidity status: those with SDOH versus those without. RESULTS A total of 10,030 patients were analyzed; there were 5015 (50.0%) in each cohort. The rates of any postoperative complication (12.0% vs 4.6%, p < 0.001); pseudarthrosis (3.4% vs 2.6%, p = 0.017); instrumentation removal (1.8% vs 1.2%, p = 0.033); length of stay (2.54 ± 5.9 days vs 2.08 ± 5.07 days, p < 0.001 [mean ± SD]); and revision surgery (9.7% vs 4.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in the SDOH group compared to patients without SDOH, respectively. Patients with any SDOH had higher odds of perioperative complications (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.43–3.33), pseudarthrosis (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.06–1.68), revision surgery (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.04–2.85), and instrumentation removal (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.04–2.00). CONCLUSIONS In patients who underwent single-level ACDF, there is an association between SDOH and higher complication rates, longer stay, increased need for instrumentation removal, and likelihood of revision surgery.

scholarly journals Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Goz ◽  
Zorica Buser ◽  
Anthony D’Oro ◽  
Christopher Wang ◽  
S. Tim Yoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Health Care Database ◽  
International Statistical Classification ◽  
Cage Group

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To determine the rates of perioperative complications in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with allograft versus synthetic cage. Methods: A large national administrative health care database was queried for ACDF procedures performed between 2007 and 2014 using ICD-9 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 9th revision) and CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes. Cases that utilized structural allograft and synthetic cages were identified via CPT codes. Gender, age, frequency of obesity, cigarette use, diabetes, and number of levels fused were compared between the 2 cohorts using χ2 test. Complications within 90 days were identified via ICD-9 codes and compared between the 2 cohorts. Revision rates within 2 years were noted. Results: A total of 10 648 ACDF cases using synthetic cages and 7135 ACDFs using structural allograft were identified. The demographics between the 2 cohorts were similar. Overall complication rate was 8.71% in the synthetic cage group compared with 7.76% in the structural allograft group ( P < .01). Use of synthetic cage was associated with higher rate of respiratory complications, 0.57% compared with 0.31% in the structural allograft cohort ( P = .03), while use of structural allograft was associated with a higher rate of dysphagia, 0.64% compared with 0.33% ( P < .01). Revision rate at 2 years was 0.50% and 0.56% in the synthetic cage and allograft groups, respectively ( P = .03). Conclusions: This data suggests that synthetic cages are associated with a marginally higher overall rate of complications with similar revision rates.

Nonunion Rates After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Comparison of Polyetheretherketone vs Structural Allograft Implants

Neurosurgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won Hyung A Ryu ◽  
Dominick Richards ◽  
Mena G Kerolus ◽  
Adewale A Bakare ◽  
Ryan Khanna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Status ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Modifiable Factors ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BACKGROUND Although advances in implant materials, such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK), have been developed aimed to improve outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), it is essential to confirm whether these changes translate into clinically important sustained benefits. OBJECTIVE To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing up to 3-level ACDF with PEEK vs structural allograft implants. METHODS In this cohort study, radiographic and symptomatic nonunion rates were compared in consecutive patients who underwent 1 to 3 level ACDF with allograft or PEEK implant. Prospectively collected clinical data and patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were compared between the allograft and PEEK groups. Regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of nonunion. RESULTS In total, 194 of 404 patients met the inclusion criteria (79% allograft vs 21% PEEK). Preoperative demographic variables were comparable between the 2 groups except for age. The rate of radiographic nonunion was higher with PEEK implants (39% vs 27%, P = .0035). However, a higher proportion of nonunion in the allograft cohort required posterior instrumentation (14% vs 3%, P = .039). Patients with multilevel procedures and PEEK implants had up to 5.8 times the risk of radiographic nonunion, whereas younger patients, active smokers, and multilevel procedures were at higher risk of symptomatic nonunion. CONCLUSION Along with implant material, factors such as younger age, active smoking status, and the number of operated levels were independent predictors of fusion failure. Given the impact of nonunion on PRO, perioperative optimization of modifiable factors and surgical planning are essential to ensure a successful outcome.

Outcomes of single-level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 1905-1908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Tracey ◽  
Daniel G. Kang ◽  
John P. Cody ◽  
Scott C. Wagner ◽  
Michael K. Rosner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Cervical Discectomy ◽  
Single Level
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document