Preliminary outcomes of allograft and hydroxyapatite as substitutes for autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking standalone cages

5Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy and safety of allograft and hydroxyapatite (HA) as substitutes for autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: In this study, 49 patients (80 segments) treated with ACDF were included and allocated into three groups [group A, autogenous iliac bone, n = 18; group B, allogeneic bone, n = 16; group C, HA, n = 15]. The clinical efficacy and fusion status were compared among each group. Complications were recorded in detail, and the Bazaz classification and Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) were used to detect dysphagia and dysphonia. Results: Patients exhibited similar clinical efficacy among the groups during the final follow-up. All patients in groups A and B achieved fusion compared to only 73.3% of patients in group C. Groups A and B had similar fusion score, both of which greater than that of group C. No cage subsidence was observed in group A; however, 6.3% of patients in group B and 53.3% in group C had cage subsidence. Two patients in group A (11.1%) had persistent pain at the donor site. One patient in group B had dysphagia and dysphonia (6.3%), while one patient in group C had dysphonia (6.7%). Conclusion: In ACDF, the autogenous iliac bone was the most ideal bone graft. The allogeneic bone was an acceptable substitute but risked cage subsidence and dysphagia. HA had a much lower fusion rate and a high risk of cage subsidence. Better substitutes should be further explored for ACDF.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yang, C., Zhuo, W., Li, Q., Huang, C., Yan, H., & Jin, D. (2021). Preliminary outcomes of allograft and hydroxyapatite as substitutes for autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with self-locking standalone cages. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02257-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free