Could the Type of Allograft Used for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Affect Surgical Outcome? A Comparison Between Cortical Ring Allograft and Cortico-Cancellous Allograft.

IF 1.9 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-18 DOI:10.4055/cios24108
Gumin Jeong, Hyun Wook Gwak, Sehan Park, Chang Ju Hwang, Jae Hwan Cho, Dong-Ho Lee
{"title":"Could the Type of Allograft Used for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Affect Surgical Outcome? A Comparison Between Cortical Ring Allograft and Cortico-Cancellous Allograft.","authors":"Gumin Jeong, Hyun Wook Gwak, Sehan Park, Chang Ju Hwang, Jae Hwan Cho, Dong-Ho Lee","doi":"10.4055/cios24108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgroud: </strong>Allograft is predominantly used interbody spacers for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The cortico-cancellous allograft has weaker mechanical strength as it is an artificial composite of the cancellous and cortical parts. Additionally, whether utilizing a firmer allograft, such as the cortical ring, leads to better outcomes is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of cortical ring and cortico-cancellous allografts in ACDF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent ACDF using allograft and were followed up for > 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics, including fusion rates (assessed by interspinous motion [ISM], intra-graft bone bridging, and extra-graft bone bridging), subsidence, allograft complications (e.g., allograft fracture and resorption), and patient-reported outcome measures (neck pain visual analog scale [VAS], arm pain VAS, and neck disability index), were assessed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the allograft used: cortical ring and cortico-cancellous allograft groups. Subgroup analysis was subsequently conducted in single- and multi-level operation groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 227 patients were included. Of them, 134 (59.0%) and 93 (41.0%) underwent ACDF using cortical ring and cortico-cancellous allograft, respectively. In single-level operations, the cortico-cancellous allograft significantly frequented allograft resorption (24 / 66, 36.4%) than the cortical ring allograft (1 / 28, 3.7%) (<i>p</i> = 0.001). The cortico-cancellous allograft group demonstrated significantly greater subsidence. However, the fusion rates did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. In multi-level operations, the cortico-cancellous allograft (5 / 27, 18.5%) resulted in a significantly higher fracture rate than the cortical ring allograft (5 / 105, 4.7%) (<i>p</i> = 0.030). The fusion rate at 1-year postoperative assessed using ISM (63.2% vs. 55.5%) and intra-graft bone bridging (66.7% vs. 40.7%) was higher in the cortical ring group; however, the difference was not significant. The patient-reported outcomes at 1-year postoperative did not demonstrate significant intergroup differences both in single- and multi-level operations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Allograft resorption or fracture occurs more frequently with cortico-cancellous than cortical ring allografts. Despite the frequent occurrence of allograft-related complications with cortico-cancellous allografts, the fusion rate was not significantly affected. Due to the higher rate of allograft resorption or fractures and greater subsidence with cortico-cancellous allografts, cortical ring allografts might yield more stable results in ACDF.</p>","PeriodicalId":47648,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","volume":"17 2","pages":"238-249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11957814/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24108","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgroud: Allograft is predominantly used interbody spacers for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The cortico-cancellous allograft has weaker mechanical strength as it is an artificial composite of the cancellous and cortical parts. Additionally, whether utilizing a firmer allograft, such as the cortical ring, leads to better outcomes is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of cortical ring and cortico-cancellous allografts in ACDF.

Methods: Patients who underwent ACDF using allograft and were followed up for > 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics, including fusion rates (assessed by interspinous motion [ISM], intra-graft bone bridging, and extra-graft bone bridging), subsidence, allograft complications (e.g., allograft fracture and resorption), and patient-reported outcome measures (neck pain visual analog scale [VAS], arm pain VAS, and neck disability index), were assessed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the allograft used: cortical ring and cortico-cancellous allograft groups. Subgroup analysis was subsequently conducted in single- and multi-level operation groups.

Results: A total of 227 patients were included. Of them, 134 (59.0%) and 93 (41.0%) underwent ACDF using cortical ring and cortico-cancellous allograft, respectively. In single-level operations, the cortico-cancellous allograft significantly frequented allograft resorption (24 / 66, 36.4%) than the cortical ring allograft (1 / 28, 3.7%) (p = 0.001). The cortico-cancellous allograft group demonstrated significantly greater subsidence. However, the fusion rates did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. In multi-level operations, the cortico-cancellous allograft (5 / 27, 18.5%) resulted in a significantly higher fracture rate than the cortical ring allograft (5 / 105, 4.7%) (p = 0.030). The fusion rate at 1-year postoperative assessed using ISM (63.2% vs. 55.5%) and intra-graft bone bridging (66.7% vs. 40.7%) was higher in the cortical ring group; however, the difference was not significant. The patient-reported outcomes at 1-year postoperative did not demonstrate significant intergroup differences both in single- and multi-level operations.

Conclusions: Allograft resorption or fracture occurs more frequently with cortico-cancellous than cortical ring allografts. Despite the frequent occurrence of allograft-related complications with cortico-cancellous allografts, the fusion rate was not significantly affected. Due to the higher rate of allograft resorption or fractures and greater subsidence with cortico-cancellous allografts, cortical ring allografts might yield more stable results in ACDF.

同种异体移植物用于前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合会影响手术结果吗?皮质环异体移植与皮质松质异体移植的比较。
背景:同种异体移植主要用于前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合(ACDF)的椎间间隔。皮质-松质异体移植物是松质部分和皮质部分的人工复合材料,机械强度较弱。此外,是否使用更坚固的同种异体移植物,如皮质环,导致更好的结果尚不清楚。因此,我们的目的是比较皮质环和皮质松质异体移植在ACDF中的手术效果。方法:回顾性分析采用同种异体移植行ACDF的患者,随访10 ~ 10年。评估患者特征,包括融合率(通过棘间运动[ISM]、移植物内骨桥和移植物外骨桥评估)、沉降、同种异体移植物并发症(例如,同种异体移植物骨折和吸收)以及患者报告的结果测量(颈部疼痛视觉模拟量表[VAS]、手臂疼痛VAS和颈部残疾指数)。根据所使用的同种异体移植物将患者分为皮质环组和皮质松质异体移植物组。随后对单手术组和多级手术组进行亚组分析。结果:共纳入227例患者。其中皮质环移植134例(59.0%),皮质松质异体移植93例(41.0%)。在单节段手术中,皮质-松质异体移植物(24 / 66,36.4%)明显高于皮质环异体移植物(1 / 28,3.7%)(p = 0.001)。皮质-松质异体移植物组表现出明显更大的下沉。然而,融合率在两组间无显著差异。在多级别手术中,皮质-松质异体移植(5 / 27,18.5%)的骨折率明显高于皮质环异体移植(5 / 105,4.7%)(p = 0.030)。采用ISM评估的术后1年融合率(63.2% vs. 55.5%)和移植物内骨桥(66.7% vs. 40.7%)在皮质环组较高;然而,差异并不显著。患者报告的术后1年的结果在单次和多次手术中没有显示出显著的组间差异。结论:皮质松质异体骨移植比皮质环异体骨移植更容易发生骨吸收或骨折。尽管皮质松质异体移植物经常发生与异体移植物相关的并发症,但融合率并未受到明显影响。由于皮质-松质异体移植具有更高的异体骨吸收率或骨折率以及更大的沉降,皮质环异体移植在ACDF中可能产生更稳定的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信