Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To compare complication incidence in patients with or without the use of recombinant human Bone Morphogenic Protein-2 (BMP2) undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative conditions. METHODS:A systematic search of eight online databases was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria included English language studies with a minimum of 10 adult patients undergoing instrumented ACDF surgery for a degenerative spinal condition in which BMP2 was used in all patients or one of the treatment arms. Studies with patients undergoing circumferential fusions, with non-degenerative indications, or which did not report post-operative complication data were excluded. Patients with and without BMP2 were compared in terms of the incidence of dysphagia/dysphonia, anterior soft tissue complications (hematoma, seroma, infection, dysphagia/dysphonia), nonunion, medical complications, and new neurologic deficits. RESULTS:= .66), and additional medical complications (RR = 1.53, CI 95% .98-2.38, P = .06) were not found to be statistically different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis identified a high rate of arthrodesis when BMP2 was used in ACDF, but confirmed increased rates of dysphagia and anterior soft tissue complications. Surgeons may consider reserving BMP2 implementation for cases with a high risk of non-union, and should be aware of the risk of airway compromise.

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 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: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. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to analyze the complications related to multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using osteobiologics other than bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). METHODS:A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. The search to identify studies reporting complications in multilevel ACDF surgery using osteobiologics other than bone morphogenetic protein was performed in August 2020. The study was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS:A total of 584 articles were found after searching the databases and removing duplicates. Next, screening was performed in a double reviewer process, and 153 eligible articles-with 4 retrospective studies-in full-text were selected; these met all inclusion criteria. A total of 197 patients received 3-level ACDF, while 72 patients received 4-level ACDF. Osteobiologics were used in all selected articles, allograft was used in 4 studies, autologous bone graft was utilized in 3 articles, and hydroxyapatite was used in 1 article. The main complications reported were dysphagia, adjacent segment disease, and pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS:Given the limited evidence, no conclusions on complications in multilevel ACDF using osteobiologics other than BMP could be made. However, descriptively, the most common complications found were dysphagia, adjacent segment disease, and pseudoarthrosis. Further prospective studies separately analyzing complications in multilevel ACDF by osteobiologics and a number of treated levels are needed.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In this study we assessed evidence for the use of osteobiologics in single vs multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spine degeneration. The primary objective was to compare fusion rates after single and multi-level surgery with different osteobiologics. Secondary objectives were to compare differences in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications. METHODS:After a global team of reviewers was selected, a systematic review using different repositories was performed, confirming to PRISMA and GRADE guidelines. In total 1206 articles were identified and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were eligible for analysis. Extracted data included fusion rates, definition of fusion, patient reported outcome measures, types of osteobiologics used, complications, adverse events and revisions. RESULTS:Fusion rates ranged from 87.7% to 100% for bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and 88.6% to 94.7% for demineralized bone matrix, while fusion rates reported for other osteobiologics were lower. All included studies showed PROMs improved significantly for each osteobiologic. However, no differences were reported when comparing osteobiologics, or when comparing single vs multi-level surgery specifically. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The highest fusion rates after 2-level ACDF for cervical spine degeneration were reported when BMP-2 was used. However, PROMs did not differ between the different osteobiologics. Further blinded randomized trials should be performed to compare the use of BMP-2 in single vs multi-level ACDF specifically.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Methodological study for guideline development. OBJECTIVE:AO Spine Guideline for Using Osteobiologics (AO-GO) project for spine degenerative pathologies was an international, multidisciplinary collaborative initiative to identify and evaluate evidence on existing use of osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Fusion and Decompression (ACDF). The aim was to formulate precisely defined, clinically relevant and internationally applicable guidelines ensuring evidence-based, safe and effective use of osteobiologics, considering regional preferences and cost-effectiveness. METHODS:Guideline was completed in two phases: Phase 1- evidence synthesis; Phase 2- recommendation development based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. In Phase 1, key questions identified by a panel of experts were addressed in a series of systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized studies. In Phase 2, the GRADE approach was used to formulate a series of recommendations, including expert panel discussions via web calls and face-to-face meetings. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:AO-GO aims to bridge an important gap between evidence and use of osteobiologics in spine fusion surgeries. Owing to differences in osteobiologics preparation and functional characteristics, regulatory requirements for approval may vary, therefore it is highly likely that these products enter market without quality clinical trials. With a holistic approach the guideline aims to facilitate evidence-based, patient-oriented decision-making processes in clinical practice, thus stimulating further evidence-based studies regarding osteobiologics usage in spine surgeries. In Phase 3, the guideline will be disseminated and validated using prospectively collected clinical data in a separate effort of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative in a global multicenter clinical study.

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 of the Literature. OBJECTIVE: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. METHODS: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. RESULTS: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. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: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.