Efficacy of an allograft cellular bone matrix as an alternative to autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: radiological results & safety
- PMID: 39399080
- PMCID: PMC11467277
- DOI: 10.21037/jss-23-142
Efficacy of an allograft cellular bone matrix as an alternative to autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: radiological results & safety
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.
Keywords: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); allograft; cellular bone matrix; cervical spine; spinal fusion.
2024 AME Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jss.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jss-23-142/coif). A.A.S. reports the royalties from Ortho Development Corp, consulting fees from Clariance Inc., Depuy Synthes Products Inc., Kuros Biosciences, and Ortho Development Inc.; the ownership interest with Centinel Spine, HSS ASC Development Network LLC, HS2 LLC, ISPH 3 Holdings LLC, ISPH II LLC, VBros Venture Partners X, Vestia Ventures MiRus Investment, LLC. He also participated in the Scientific Advisory Board of Clariance Inc., Depuy Synthes Products Inc., and Kuros Biosciences. FPC reports the royalties from Accelus-Consultant, consulting fees from 4Web Medical, Synexis LLC, NuVasive Inc., Spine Biopharma LLC; ownership interest with 4Web Medical, HealthPoint Capital Partners LP, Ivy Healthcare Capital Partners LLC, ISPH 3 Holdings LLC, ISPH II LLC, Orthobond Corp, Spine Biopharma, Tissue Differentiation Intelligence LLC, VBVP VI LLC, VBVP X LLC, Woven Orthopedic Technologies. He also participates in 4Web Medical, HealthPoint Capital Partners LP, Orthobond Corp., and Wove Orthopedic Technologies. CA reports consulting fees from Camber Spine Tech, and Centinel Spine Tech; ownership interest with Orthobond Corporation. She also participates in the advisory board of Camber Spine Tech and Orthobond Corporation. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Figures
References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous