Complications of the Use Allograft in 1- or 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review
Study Design: Systematic literature review Objective: To critically analyze the literature and describe the complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.g...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Global spine journal 2024-02, Vol.14 (2_suppl), p.70-77 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Study Design: Systematic literature review
Objective: To critically analyze the literature and describe the complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)
Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted for literature published between January 2000 and August 2020 reporting complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level ACDF.
Results: From 584 potentially relevant citations, 21 met the inclusion criteria (4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 4 prospective, and 13 retrospective studies). The patient number varied between 26 and 463 in comparative studies (RCT and non-RCT) and between 29 and 345 in non-comparative studies. Fusion rate was reported in 14 studies and ranged between 68.5-100%. The most frequently reported complication was post-operative dysphagia or dysphonia, with incidences ranging between .5% and 14.4%. Revision surgery was the second most reported complication (14 studies) and ranged between 0% and 10.3%. Wound-related complications were reported in 6 studies and ranged between 0% and 22.8%.
Conclusion: The overall reporting of complications was low with very few comparative studies. Reported complications with allografts are within the range of other osteobiologics and autografts and in most cases may not attributable to the use of osteobiologics and may be complications of the procedure itself. Comparative studies with a more robust methodology analyzing complications with allograft and other osteobiologics are needed to inform current practice with strong recommendations. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2192-5682 2192-5690 |
DOI: | 10.1177/21925682231173358 |