Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

Global Spine J. 2024 Feb;14(2_suppl):34S-42S. doi: 10.1177/21925682231171857.

Abstract

Study design: Systematic Literature Review.

Objective: Perform a systematic review evaluating postoperative fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials.

Methods: Comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed. Included studies were those that reported results of 1-4 levels ACDF using pure structural allograft compared with a mechanical interbody device augmented with an osteobiologic. Excluded studies were those that reported on ACDF with cervical corpectomy; anterior and posterior cervical fusions; circumferential (360° or 540°) fusion or revision ACDF for nonunion or other conditions. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane review guidelines.

Results: 8 articles reporting fusion rates of structural allograft and an interbody device/osteobiologic pair were included. All included studies compared fusion rates following ACDF among structural allograft vs non-allograft interbody device/osteobiologic pairs. Fusion rates were reported between 84% and 100% for structural allograft, while fusion rates for various interbody device/osteobiologic combinations ranged from 26% to 100%. Among non-allograft cage groups fusion rates varied from 73-100%. One study found PEEK cages filled with combinations of autograft, allograft, and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) to have an overall fusion rate of 26%. In one study comparing plate and zero-profile constructs, there was no difference in fusion rates for two-level fusions.

Conclusion: There was limited data comparing fusion outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF using structural allograft vs interbody devices augmented with osteobiologic materials to support superiority of one method.

Keywords: ACDF; bone graft; cervical; degenerative disc disease; discectomy; osteologic.