Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Guideline. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To develop an international guideline (AOGO) about the use of osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative spine conditions. METHODS:The guideline development process was guided by AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative (KF Degen) and followed the Guideline International Network McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. The process involved 73 participants with expertise in degenerative spine diseases and surgery from 22 countries. Fifteen systematic reviews were conducted addressing respective key topics and evidence was collected. The methodologist compiled the evidence into GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. Guideline panel members judged the outcomes and other criteria and made the final recommendations through consensus. RESULTS:Five conditional recommendations were created. A conditional recommendation is about the use of allograft, autograft or a cage with an osteobiologic in primary ACDF surgery. Other conditional recommendations are about the use of osteobiologic for single- or multi-level ACDF, and for hybrid construct surgery. It is suggested that surgeons use other osteobiologics rather than human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) in common clinical situations. Surgeons are recommended to choose 1 graft over another or 1 osteobiologic over another primarily based on clinical situation, and the costs and availability of the materials. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This AOGO guideline is the first to provide recommendations for the use of osteobiologics in ACDF. Despite the comprehensive searches for evidence, there were few studies completed with small sample sizes and primarily as case series with inherent risks of bias. Therefore, high-quality clinical evidence is demanded to improve the guideline.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE:To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes as well as complications of unplated vs plated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery considering the role of osteobiologics in single- and multi-level procedures. METHODS:A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed. Briefly, we sought to identify studies comparing unplated vs. plated ACDF for cervical degenerative disc disease reporting the use of osteobiologics in terms of clinical outcomes, radiographic fusion, and complications. Data on study population, follow-up time, type of cage and plate used, type of osteobiologic employed, number of levels treated, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), radiographic outcomes and complications were collected and compared. Relevant information was pooled for meta-analyses. RESULTS:Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was found in terms of clinical outcomes between groups. Unplated ACDF was characterized by reduced blood loss, operation time and length of hospital stay. Fusion was achieved by the majority of patients in both groups, with no evidence of any specific contribution depending on the osteobiologics used. Dysphagia was more commonly associated with anterior plating, while cage subsidence prevailed in the unplated group. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Unplated and plated ACDF seem to provide similar outcomes irrespective of the osteobiologic used, with minor differences with doubtful clinical significance. However, the heterogeneity and high risk of bias affecting included studies markedly prevent significant conclusions.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To analyze the evidence available reporting complications in single or two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a demineralized bone matrix (DBM), hydroxyapatite (HA), or beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP). METHODS:A systematic review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed in August 2020 to identify studies reporting complications in one or two-level ACDF surgery using DBM, HA, or β-TCP. The study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS:A total of 1857 patients were included, 981 male and 876 female, across 17 articles; 5 prospective, and 12 retrospectives. We noted heterogeneity among the included studies concerning the study design and combination of graft materials utilized in them. However, we noted a higher incidence of adjacent segment disease (17.7%) and pseudoarthrosis (9.3%) in fusion constructs using DBM. Studies using β-TCP reported a higher incidence of pseudoarthrosis (28.2%) and implant failures (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS:Degenerative cervical conditions treated with one or two-level ACDF surgery using DBM, HA, or β-TCP with or without cervical plating are associated with complications such as adjacent segment disease, dysphagia, and pseudarthrosis. However, consequent to the study designs and clinical heterogeneity of the studies, it is not possible to correlate these complications accurately with any specific graft material employed. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to correctly know the related morbidity of each graft used for achieving fusion in ACDF.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE:To analyze the literature and describe the evidence supporting osteobiologic use in revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. METHODS:A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted for literature reporting the use of osteobiologics in revision ACDF. We searched for studies reporting outcomes of using any osteobiologic use in revision ACDF surgeries (independently of the number of levels) in the above databases. RESULTS:There are currently no studies in the literature describing the outcome and comparative efficacy of diverse osteobiologic agents in the context of revision ACDF surgery. A majority of the current evidence is based only upon studies involving primary ACDF surgery. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The current study highlights the paucity of literature evidence on the role of diverse osteobiologics in revision ACDF, and foregrounds the need for high-quality evidence on this subject.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review. OBJECTIVE:To assess the available evidence related to dose-dependent effectiveness (i.e., bone fusion) and morbidity of osteobiologics used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS:Studies with more than 9 adult patients with degenerated/herniated cervical discs operated for one-to four-levels ACDF reporting used osteobiologics doses, fusion rates at six months or later, and related comorbidities were included. PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials, and Cochrane were searched through September 2021. Data extracted in spread sheet and risk of bias assessed using MINORS and Rob-2. RESULTS:Sixteen studies were selected and sub-grouped into BMP and non-BMP osteobiologics. For the 10 BMP studies, doses varied from 0.26 to 2.1 mg in 649 patients with fusion rates of 95.3 to 100% at 12 months. For other osteobiologics, each of six studies reported one type of osteobiologic in certain dose/concentration/volume in a total of 580 patients with fusion rates of 6.8 to 96.9% at 12 months. Risk of bias was low in three of the 13 non-randomized (18.75%) and in all the three randomized studies (100%). CONCLUSIONS:Taking into account the inconsistent reporting within available literature, for BMP usage in ACDF, doses lower than 0.7 mg per level can achieve equal successful fusion rates as higher doses, and there is no complication-free dose proved yet. It seems that the lower the dose the lower the incidence of serious complications. As for non-BMP osteobiologics the studies are very limited for each osteobiologic and thus conclusions must be drawn individually and with caution.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The study's primary objective was to determine how osteobiologic choice affects fusion rates in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The study's secondary objectives were to 1) determine the optimal timing of fusion assessment following ACDF and 2) determine if osteobiologic type affects the timing and optimal modality of fusion assessment. METHODS:A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for literature published from 2000 through October 2020 comparing anterior fusion in the cervical spine with various osteobiologics. Both comparative studies and case series of ≥10 patients were included. RESULTS:A total of 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies evaluated the efficacy of autograft on fusion outcomes, and 23 studies assessed the efficacy of allograft on fusion outcomes. 3 studies evaluated the efficacy of demineralized bone matrix, and seven assessed the efficacy of rhBMP-2 on fusion outcomes. Other limited studies evaluated the efficacy of ceramics and bioactive glasses on fusion outcomes, and 4 assessed the efficacy of stem cell products. Most studies utilized dynamic radiographs for the assessment of fusion. Overall, there was a general lack of supportive data to determine the optimal timing of fusion assessment meaningfully or if osteobiologic type influenced fusion timing. CONCLUSIONS:Achieving fusion following ACDF appears to remain an intricate interplay between host biology and various surgical factors, including the selection of osteobiologics. While alternative osteobiologics to autograft exist and may produce acceptable fusion rates, limitations in study methodology prevent any definitive conclusions from existing literature.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review. OBJECTIVE:Examine the clinical evidence for the use of osteobiologics in hybrid surgery (combined anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and total disc replacement (TDR)) in patients with multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). METHODS:PubMed and Embase were searched between January 2000 and August 2020. Clinical studies investigating 18-80 year old patients with multilevel cervical DDD who underwent hybrid surgery with or without the use of osteobiologics were considered eligible. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the identified articles. The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool and the risk of bias (RoB 2.0) assessment tool were used to assess risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to evaluate quality of evidence across studies per outcome. RESULTS:Eleven studies were included. A decrease in cervical range of motion was observed in most studies for both the hybrid surgery and the control groups consisting of stand-alone ACDF or TDR. Fusion rates of 70-100% were reported in both the hybrid surgery and control groups consisting of stand-alone ACDF. The hybrid surgery group performed better or comparable to the control group in terms of adjacent segment degeneration. Studies reported an improvement in visual analogue scale for pain and neck disability index values after surgery compared to preoperative scores for both treatment groups. The included studies had moderate methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS:There is insufficient evidence for assessing the use of osteobiologics in multilevel hybrid surgery and additional high quality and controlled research is deemed essential.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the relationship between nerve root retraction time, post-operative radiculitis and patient reported outcomes. METHODS:Patients who underwent single- or multi-level lumbar discectomy between 2020 and 2022 for lumbar disk herniations were prospectively followed with pre-operative, interoperative and post-operative variables including radiculitis and patient reported outcomes including VAS, ODI and CAT domains Pain interference, Pain intensity and Physical function. Intraoperative nerve root retraction time was recorded. Paired sample two-tailed t-test and multivariate regression were utilized with p < 0.05 being significant. RESULTS:A total of 157 patients who underwent single- or multi-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Average patient age was 44 years, and 64% were male patients. Nerve retraction time ranged from 4 to 15 min. Eighteen percent reported new radiculitis at 2-weeks post-operatively. In patients with new-onset radiculitis 79.2% reported significantly worse VAS leg at 2 weeks post-operative (4.2 vs. 8.3, p < 0.001) compared to 12.5% who had improved VAS leg (9.3 vs. 7, p = 0.1181). Patients with radiculitis and worse VAS scores had substantially longer nerve retraction time (13.8 ± 7.5 min) than patients with improved VAS leg (6.7 ± 1.2 min). At 6 months, patients with longer nerve retraction time had no significant improvement in the ODI or CAT compared to the baseline. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study in discectomy literature to show that new onset radiculitis and poorer outcomes in VAS leg correlate with longer nerve retraction time at early and later time points.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with decompression-only procedure has been performed for its added benefit of a shorter duration of surgery, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, reported failure rates for decompression-only procedures vary depending on the methods utilized for decompression. Hence, we aim to identify the failure rates of individual methods of decompression-only procedures performed for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:An independent systematic review of 4 scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant articles as per the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on failure rates defined by reoperation at the index level following decompression-only procedure for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included for analysis. Studies were appraised using ROBINS tool of Cochrane, and analysis was performed using the Open Meta[Analyst] software. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The overall failure rate of decompression-only procedure was 9.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] [6.5-11.7]). Furthermore, open decompression had failure rate of 10.9% (95% CI [6.0-15.8]), while microendoscopic decompression had failure rate of 6.7% (95% CI [2.9-10.6]). The failure rate gradually increased from 6.9% (95% CI [2.0-11.7]) at 1 year to 7% (95% CI [3.6-10.3]), 11.7% (95% CI [4.5-18.9]), and 11.7% (95% CI [6.6-16.7]) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Single level decompression had a failure rate of 9.6% (95% CI [6.3-12.9]), while multilevel decompression recorded a failure rate of 8.7% (95% CI [5.6-11.7]). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:High-quality evidence on the decompression-only procedure for degenerative spondylolisthesis is limited. The decompression-only procedure had an overall failure rate of 9.1% without significant differences between the decompression techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/UNASSIGNED:Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.