Dataset Information

Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Systematic review.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), non-ICBG autologous bone, and allograft in cervical spine fusion. To avoid problems at the donor site, various allograft materials have been used as a substitute for autograft. However, there are still questions as to the comparative effectiveness and safety of cadaver allograft compared with autologous ICBG.

Methods

A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies evaluating spinal fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disk disease using ICBG compared with non-ICBG autograft or allograft or non-ICBG autograft compared with allograft in the cervical spine. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. Adverse events were evaluated for safety.

Results

The search identified 13 comparative studies that met our inclusion criteria: 2 prospective cohort studies and 11 retrospective cohort studies. Twelve cohort studies compared allograft with ICBG autograft during anterior cervical fusion and demonstrated with a low evidence level of support that there are no differences in fusion percentages, pain scores, or functional results. There was insufficient evidence comparing patients receiving allograft with non-ICBG autograft for fusion, pain, revision, and functional and safety outcomes. No publications directly comparing non-ICBG autograft with ICBG were found.

Conclusion

Although the available literature suggests ICBG and allograft may have similar effectiveness in terms of fusion rates, pain scores, and functional outcomes following anterior cervical fusion, there are too many limitations in the available literature to draw any significant conclusions. No individual study provided greater than class III evidence, and when evaluating the overall body of literature, no conclusion had better than low evidence support. A prospective randomized trial with adequate sample size to compare fusion rates, efficacy measures, costs, and safety is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Tuchman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5400159 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Tuchman Alexander A Brodke Darrel S DS Youssef Jim A JA Meisel Hans-Jörg HJ Dettori Joseph R JR Park Jong-Beom JB Yoon S Tim ST Wang Jeffrey C JC

Global spine journal 20170201 1

<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), non-ICBG autologous bone, and allograft in cervical spine fusion. To avoid problems at the donor site, various allograft materials have been used as a substitute for autograft. However, there are still questions as to the comparative effectiveness and safety of cadaver allograft compared with autologous ICBG.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of multiple major ...[more]

PMID: 28451511

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn autograft has traditionally been the gold standard for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the use of allograft tissue has increased in recent years. While numerous studies have demonstrated that irradiated allografts are associated with increased failure rates, some report excellent results after ACLR with nonirradiated allografts. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether the use of nonirradiated allograft tissue is associated with poorer outcomes when compared with autografts.HypothesisPatients undergoing ACLR with autografts versus nonirradiated allografts will demonstrate no significant differences in graft failure risk, laxity on postoperative physical examination, or differences in patient-oriented outcome scores.Study designSystematic review.MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify prospective or retrospective comparative studies (evidence level 1, 2, or 3) of autografts versus nonirradiated allografts for ACLR. Outcome data included graft failure based on clinical findings and instrumented laxity, postoperative laxity on physical examination, and patient-reported outcome scores. Studies were excluded if they did not specify whether the allograft had been irradiated. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by 2 examiners.ResultsNine studies comparing autografts and nonirradiated allografts were included. Six of the 9 studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts with BPTB allografts. Two studies compared hamstring tendon autografts to hamstring tendon allografts, and 1 study compared hamstring tendon autografts to tibialis anterior allografts. The mean patient age in 7 of 9 studies ranged from 24.5 to 32 years, with 1 study including only patients older than 40 years and another not reporting patient age. The mean follow-up duration was 24 to 94 months. Six of 9 studies reported clinical graft failure rates, 8 of 9 reported postoperative instrumented laxity measurements, 7 of 9 reported postoperative physical examination findings, and all studies reported patient-reported outcome scores. This review demonstrated no statistically significant difference between autografts and nonirradiated allografts in any outcome measure.ConclusionNo significant differences were found in graft failure rate, postoperative laxity, or patient-reported outcome scores when comparing ACLR with autografts to nonirradiated allografts in this systematic review. These findings apply to patients in their late 20s and early 30s. Caution is advised when considering extrapolation of these findings to younger, more active cohorts.

Project description:Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can be performed with use of either autograft or allograft tissue. It is currently unclear if the outcomes of these two methods differ significantly. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the short-term clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate reconstruction with allograft were significantly different from those with autograft.A computerized search of the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted. Only therapeutic studies with a prospective or retrospective comparative design were considered for inclusion in the present investigation. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted relevant data from each included study. If a study failed the qualitative assessment and statistical tests of homogeneity, it was excluded from the meta-analysis. Furthermore, a study was withdrawn from the meta-analysis of a particular outcome if that outcome was not studied or was not reported adequately. A Mantel-Haenszel analysis utilizing a random-effects model allowed for pooling of results according to graft source while accounting for the number of subjects in individual studies.Nine studies were determined to be appropriate for the systematic review. Eight studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts, and one study compared quadruple-stranded hamstring grafts. Five studies were prospective comparative studies, and four were retrospective comparative studies. One study, which investigated allografts that underwent a unique sterilization process, demonstrated an allograft failure rate of 45% (thirty-eight of eighty-five). That study failed the qualitative assessment and statistical tests of homogeneity and consequently was excluded from the meta-analysis. When the outcomes from the remaining studies were pooled according to graft source, the meta-analyses of the Lysholm score, instrumented laxity measurements, and the clinical failure rate estimated mean differences and odds ratios that were not significant. These findings were robust during the sensitivity analysis, which varied the included studies or variables on the basis of graft type, instrumented laxity cut-off value, secondary sterilization technique, duration of follow-up, mean patient age, and study methodology.In general, the short-term clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate reconstruction with allograft were not significantly different from those with autograft. However, it is important to note that none of these nonrandomized studies stratified outcomes according to age or utilized multivariable modeling to mathematically control for age (or any other possible confounder, such as activity level, that is not equally distributed in the two treatment groups). Understanding these limitations of the best available evidence, the surgeon may incorporate the results of the present systematic review into the informed-consent and shared-decision-making process in order to individualize optimum patient care.

Project description:ContextThe advantages of allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), which include shorter surgical time, less postoperative pain, and no donor site morbidity, may be offset by a higher risk of failure. Previous systematic reviews have inconsistently shown a difference in failure prevalence by graft type; however, such reviews have never been stratified for younger or more active patients.ObjectiveTo determine whether there is a different ACLR failure prevalence of autograft compared with allograft in young, active patients.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane trials registry.Study selectionComparative studies of allograft versus autograft primary ACL reconstruction in patients <25 years of age or of high-activity level (military, Marx activity score >12 points, collegiate or semiprofessional athletes).Study designSystematic review with meta-analysis.Level of evidenceLevel 3.Data extractionManual extraction of available data from eligible studies. Quantitative synthesis of failure prevalence and Lysholm score (outcomes in ?3 studies) and I (2) test for heterogeneity. Assessment of study quality using CLEAR NPT and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).ResultsSeven studies met inclusion criteria (1 level 1; 2 level 2, 4 level 3), including 788 patients treated with autograft tissue and 228 with various allografts. The mean age across studies was 21.7 years (64% male), and follow-up ranged between 24 and 51 months. The pooled failure prevalence was 9.6% (76/788) for autografts and 25.0% (57/228) for allografts (relative risk, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53; P < 0.00001; I (2) = 16%). The number needed to benefit to prevent 1 failure by using autograft was 7 patients (95% CI, 5-10). No difference between hamstrings autograft and patella tendon autograft was noted. Lysholm score was reported in 3 studies and did not differ between autograft and allograft.ConclusionWhile systematic reviews comparing allograft and autograft ACLR have been equivocal, this is the first review to examine young and active patients in whom allograft performs poorly.

Dataset Information

Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Study design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets