Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review. (February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tuchman, Alexander; Brodke, Darrel S.; Youssef, Jim A.; Meisel, Hans-Jörg; Dettori, Joseph R.; Park, Jong-Beom; Yoon, S. Tim; Wang, Jeffrey C.
• Is Part Of: Global spine journal. Volume 7:Number 1(2017)
• Page Start: 59
• Page End: 70
• Publication Date: 2017-02
• Subjects: cervical spine -- fusion -- autograft -- allograft -- autologous iliac crest bone graft -- systemic review -- surgery; Spine -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Spine -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Spine -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Spine -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.73
• DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1580610
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2192-5682

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.