Purpose of the study: ACDF is the cervical surgical technique the most widely used for the treatment of severe discopathy in rugby players. Different techniques have been applied, with no real consensus for the technical procedures or the postoperative rehabilitation. The goal is to normalise the surgical treatment and rehabilitation for elite rugby players who have had a cervical fusion for discopathy with the objective of resuming rugby three months postoperatively.

Material and methods: This was a retrospective study including 85 high-level rugby players (professional and semi-professional players) operated on by three surgeons from 2003 to 2008 for one or two levels presenting discal herniation (levels C3 to T1) with cervicobrachial nevralgia unresponsive to conservative treatment. Postoperative function was assessed with the cervical handicap index, a visual analogue scale for pain, consumption of analgesics, and possibility to resume rugby at three months. Flexion-extension radiographs of the cervical spine were obtained. All patients underwent ACDF using a Peek cage filled with autologous iliac bone fixed with a plate or a compressive staple. The patient completed a self-administered satisfaction questionnaire during follow-up. The radiographs and the clinical exam were done by an independent observer (GG).

Results: Mean follow-up was 26 months (4–55). Mean operative time was 50 minutes (30–70). Mean hospital stay 2.3 days (1–3). There was no difference between plate and staple fixation. There were no major postoperative complications. Fusion was radiographically achieved in all cases. All patients played competition rugby three months after surgery. At last follow-up, seven players had interrupted rugby playing for personal reasons or for other intercurrent medical conditions. Seventy-eight percent stated their clinical situation had improved and that they were satisfied.

Conclusion: The results of this series confirm the pertinence of this method to achieve effective fusion authorising resumption of rugby playing three months postoperatively. Use of a Peek cage filled with autologous bone and stabilised with fixation appears to be necessary to allow rapid functional rehabilitation exercises using a programme of three phases of one month. The normalisation of the treatment for sever cervical discopathies in the high-level rugby player appears to be possible and safe, compared with data in the literature.

The October 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Analysis of risk factors for non-fusion of bone graft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a clinical retrospective study; Does paraspinal muscle mass predict lumbar lordosis before and after decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis?; Return to work after surgery for lumbar disk herniation: a nationwide registry-based study; Can the six-minute walking test assess ambulatory function impairment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy?; Complications after adult deformity surgery: losing more than sleep; Frailty limits how good we can get in adult spine deformity surgery.

The April 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy; Spine surgical site infections: a single debridement is not enough; Lenke type 5, anterior, or posterior: systematic review and meta-analysis; Epidural steroid injections and postoperative infection in lumbar decompression or fusion; Noninferiority of posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy; Identifying delays to surgical treatment for metastatic disease; Cervical disc replacement and adjacent segment disease: the NECK trial; Predicting complication in adult spine deformity surgery.

The December 2022 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis protocol on a Level 1 trauma centre patient database; Non-specific spondylodiscitis: a new perspective for surgical treatment; Disc degeneration could be recovered after chemonucleolysis; Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy- anterior cervical discectomy and fusion “hybrid” procedures: how does the alignment look?; Rivaroxaban or enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; Surgical site infection: when do we have to remove the implants?; Determination of a neurologic safe zone for bicortical S1 pedicle placement; Do you need to operate on unstable spine fractures in the elderly: outcomes and mortality; Degeneration to deformity: when does the patient need both?

Objectives. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was evaluated after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures in a randomized, controlled clinical study performed for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. PEMF significantly increased fusion rates at six months, but 12-month fusion outcomes for subjects at elevated risk for pseudoarthrosis were not thoroughly reported. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of PEMF treatment on subjects at increased risk for pseudoarthrosis after ACDF procedures. Methods. Two evaluations were performed that compared fusion rates between PEMF stimulation and a historical control (160 subjects) from the FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) study: a post hoc (PH) analysis of high-risk subjects from the FDA study (PH PEMF); and a multicentre, open-label (OL) study consisting of 274 subjects treated with PEMF (OL PEMF). Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression was used to compare fusion rates between PEMF-treated subjects and historical controls. Results. In separate comparisons of PH PEMF and OL PEMF groups to the historical control group, PEMF treatment significantly (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test) increased the fusion rate at six and 12 months for certain high-risk subjects who had at least one clinical risk factor of being elderly, a nicotine user, osteoporotic, or diabetic; and for those with at least one clinical risk factor and who received at least a two- or three-level arthrodesis. Conclusion. Adjunctive PEMF treatment can be recommended for patients who are at high risk for pseudoarthrosis. Cite this article: D. Coric, D. E. Bullard, V. V. Patel, J. T. Ryaby, B. L. Atkinson, D. He, R. D. Guyer. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation may improve fusion rates in cervical arthrodesis in high-risk populations. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:124–130. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.72.BJR-2017-0221.R1

Introduction. To develop an international guideline (AOGO) about use of osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative spine conditions. Method. The guideline development process was guided by AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative (KF Degen) and followed the Guideline International Network McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. The process involved 73 participants with expertise in degenerative spine diseases and surgery from 22 countries. Fifteen systematic reviews were conducted addressing respective key topics and evidence were collected. The methodologist compiled the evidence into GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. Guideline panel members judged the outcomes and other criteria and made the final recommendations through consensus. Result. Five conditional recommendations were created. A conditional recommendation is about the use of allograft, autograft or a cage with an osteobiologic in primary ACDF surgery. Other conditional recommendations are about use of osteobiologic for single or multi-level ACDF, and for hybrid construct surgery. It is suggested that surgeons use other osteobiologics rather than human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in common clinical situations. Surgeons are recommended to choose one graft over another or one osteobiologic over another primarily based on clinical situation, and the costs and availability of the materials. Conclusion. This AOGO guideline is the first to provide recommendations for the use of osteobiologics in ACDF. Despite the comprehensive searches for evidence, there were few studies completed with small sample sizes and primarily as case series with inherent risks of bias. Therefore high quality clinical evidence is demanded to improve the guideline

The August 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Steroids may be useful in avoiding dysphagia in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Perhaps X-Stop ought to stop?; Is cervical plexus block in ACDF the gateway to day case spinal surgery?; Epidural past its heyday?; Steroids in lumbar back pain; Lumbar disc replacement improving; Post-discectomy arthritis

Aims. Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition. Methods. Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom’s criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom’s scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss. Conclusion. Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981–996

Background. The controversy concerning the benefits of unisegmental cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) over anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is still open because some randomised clinical trial (RTC) comparing ACDF with CDA have been highly inconclusive. Most of these studies mixed disc prosthesis with dissimilar kinematic characteristics. To date, a compilation of the clinical and radiologic outcomes and adverse events of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) compared with a single cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) design, the Bryan disc has partially accomplished. Methods. This is a systematic review of RCTs with level I-II evidence. Only RCTs reporting clinical outcomes were included in this review. After a search on different databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid MEDLINE, a total of 10 RCTs out of total 51 studies were entered in the study. RTC's were searched from the earliest available records in 2005 to December 2014. Results. Five studies were Level I, and five were Level II. Out of a total of 1101 patients, 562 patients were randomly assigned into the Bryan arthroplasty group and the remaining 539 patients into the ACDF group. The mean follow-up was 30.9 months. Patients undergoing CDA had lower Neck Disability Index, and better SF-36 Physical component scores than ACDF patients. Patients with Bryan CDA had also less radiological degenerative changes at the upper adjacent level. Overall adverse events were twice more frequent in patients with ACDF. The rate of revision surgery including both adjacent and index level were slightly higher in patients with ACDF, showing no statistically significant difference. Conclusions. This review of evidence level I-II RCTs comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of patient undergoing Bryan arthroplasty or ACDF indicated a global superiority of the Bryan disc. The impact of both surgical techniques on the cervical spine (radiological spine deterioration and/or complications) was more severe in patients undergoing ACDF. However, the rate of revision surgeries at any cervical level was equivalent for ACDF and Bryan arthroplasty. These data suggest that even though the loss of motion has a determinant influence in the development of degenerative changes in ACDF cases, these kinematic factors do not imply a higher rate of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration requiring surgery. Level of Evidence. Level I

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a well-established spinal operation for cervical disc degeneration disease with neurological compromise. The procedure involves an anterior approach to the cervical spine with discectomy to relieve the pressure on the impinged spinal cord to slow disease progression. The prosthetic cage replaces the disc and can be inserted stand-alone or with an anterior plate that provides additional stability. The literature demonstrates that the cage-alone (CA) is given preference over the cage-plate (CP) technique due to better clinical outcomes, reduced operation time and resultant morbidity. This retrospective case-controlled study compared CA versus CP fixation used in single and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for myelopathy in a tertiary centre in Wales. A retrospective clinico-radiological analysis was undertaken, following ACDF procedures over seven years in a single tertiary centre. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years of age with cervical myelopathy who had at least six-month follow-up data. SPSS was used to identify any statistically significant difference between both groups. The data were analysed to evaluate the consistency of our findings in comparison to published literature. Eighty-six patients formed the study cohort; 28 [33%] underwent ACDF with CA and 58 [67%] with CP. The patient demographics were similar in both groups, and fusion was observed in all individuals. There was no statistical difference between the two constructs when assessing subsidence, clinical complication (dysphagia, dysphonia, infection), radiological parameters and reoperations. However, a more significant percentage [43% v 61%] of patients improved their cervical lordosis angle with CP treatment. Furthermore, the study yielded that surgery to upper cervical levels results in a higher incidence of dysphagia [65% v 35%]. Finally, bony growth across the cage was observed on X-ray in 12[43%] patients, a unique finding not mentioned in the literature previously. Our study demonstrates no overall difference between the two groups, and we recommend careful consideration of individual patient factors when deciding what construct to choose

Abstract. Objectives. There is still controversy in the literature over whether Cervical Foraminotomy or Anterior Cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is best for treating cervical Radiculopathy. Numerous studies have focused on the respective complication rates of these procedures and outcome measures with a lack of due consideration to preoperative MRI findings. Proximal foraminal stenosis can theoretically be accessed via either approach. We aimed to investigate whether patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) favoured one approach over the other in patients with proximal foraminal stenosis. Methods. A single centre retrospective review of patients undergoing either ACDF or Cervical foraminotomy over the period 2012 to 2022. VAS, Neck disability index (NDI), EQ5DL and Patient Satisfaction on a Five Point Likert scale were obtained. Patients who had both an ACDF and a Foraminotomy were excluded. Axial MRI images were analysed and the location of the worst clinically relevant disc herniation stratified as follows: Central (1), Paracentral (2) and Foraminal (3). Correlations and average PROMs were analysed in SPSS. Results. PROMs scores were available for 33 ACDF patients and 37 Foraminotomy patients. Average surgery time in ACDF group was 167 minutes while Foraminotomy 142 minutes. Average Length of hospital stay was 6.24 days in the Foraminotomy group and 3.54 days in the ACDF group. 18 patients were excluded due to having both surgeries (2 of which developed CSF leaks postoperatively). Of the included patients there were no postoperative complications. 13 patients in the ACDF had Central or Paracentral stenosis in addition to proximal Foraminal stenosis, 3 patients in the Foraminotomy group had some significant Paracentral herniation just before the Proximal foramen. The majority of patients in both groups had pure proximal Foraminal stenosis (N= 17 (ACDF), 20 (Foraminotomy). The results showed no significant difference in PROMs between patients who received an ACDF or a Foraminotomy for Proximal foraminal stenosis (EQ5DL, NDI, and satisfaction, P= 0.268, 0.253 and 0.327). There was no correlation between location of the stenosis and PROM scores in either group. Conclusions. Our data suggest that Proximal foraminal stenosis can be effectively addressed by either an anterior ACDF or a Foraminotomy with no difference in complication rates. Foraminotomy has the benefit of no implant cost but longer hospital stay. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods. Databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Inclusion criteria involved prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease. Two independent investigators extracted the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome measures were overall and neurological success, and these were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized patient-reported outcomes, including the incidence of further surgery and adjacent segment disease, were summarized and discussed. Results. A total of 22 papers published from 14 RCTs were included, representing 3160 patients with follow-up of up to ten years. Meta-analysis indicated that TDR is superior to ACDF at two years and between four and seven years. In the short-term, patients who underwent TDR had better patient-reported outcomes than those who underwent ACDF, but at two years this was typically not significant. Results between four and seven years showed significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component scores, dysphagia, and satisfaction, all favouring TDR. Most trials found significantly less adjacent segment disease after TDR at both two years (short-term) and between four and seven years (medium- to long-term). Conclusion. TDR is as effective as ACDF and superior for some outcomes. Disc replacement reduces the risk of adjacent segment disease. Continued uncertainty remains about degeneration of the prosthesis. Long-term surveillance of patients who undergo TDR may allow its routine use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:991–1001

We have examined how many and which potential complications (PCs) are recorded on the consent form by a group of consultant surgeons performing common spinal procedures - anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior lumbar discectomy and/or medial facetectomy (PLD). Email survey. Consultant spinal surgeons performing ACDF and/or PLD practicing in Southwest England. Identification of the PCs each surgeon listed on the consent form for the specified procedures. There were 23 responses from 28 Consultant surgeons approached. 21 surgeons performed both ACDF and PLD, 2 performed only PLD. Surgeons quoted 5 to 17 (mode 10) PCs for ACDF and 4 to 15 (mode 13) for PLD. These did not necessarily represent the most common or most dangerous PCs recorded in the literature. 1,2. Small difference in PCs mentioned by Neurosurgeons and Orthopaedic surgeons was seen (ACDF mode: 12vs10, PLD mode: 12vs13). There was a strong correlation between the number of PCs recorded by surgeons for ACDF and PLD. We have found a wide variation in consenting practice amongst a group of surgeons performing common spinal operations. Issues of consent are common causes of formal complaints and potential litigation, causing anxiety for both patient and surgeon. A more homogenous consent process, employing objective measures where possible, may help reduce this burden and may be achieved by setting a national standard

Background: Several recent studies have compared incorporation of autograft with that of allograft or synthetic bone substitutes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). These studies have almost universally relied on plain radiography to assess bone incorporation despite the fact that we know, from similar lumbar spine studies, that bone ingrowth is over-estimated. Our aim was to determine the exactly whether bone incorporation may be correctly assessed by this method by comparing the results to those obtained by spiral CT imaging. Methods: 15 patients underwent ACDF. Helical CT scans were obtained. Fusion was defined as trabecular continuity across the disc space anterior, through and posterior to the cage proximally and distally and assessed by two of the authors independently. Results: 14 of the 15 patients appeared to have solid incorporation of bone graft/substitute on plain radiography, 19 out of 20 cages. These findings were not however replicated on CT imaging. The autograft was not considered to have been incorporated proximally above the cage in 5 cases and distally in 6 cases. Discussion: The implication of our results is that there is at least a false positive rate of bone incorporation of 20–25%. Pseudarthroses are generally painful and therefore we would recommend that spiral CT imaging is performed in patients who have ongoing pain following ACDF. Ethics approval: COREC Ethics committee number 06/S1104/34. Interest Statement: None of the authors have received any grants to carry out this research

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel Artificial Cervical Disc. Design: Compare the Bryan prosthesis to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), by using the pre-defined objective performance criteria (OPC) derived from a literature meta-analysis of ACDF in which a success rate of 73% was established. The Null hypothesis is that the success rate for the Bryan prosthesis is greater or equal to the OPC (Objective Performance Criteria) of 85%. Secondary Objectives studied included the range of motion after implantation; adverse events from implantation onwards; maintenance of the disc space height; amount of subsidence. Radiology was assessed by an independent radiologist. Improvement in the quality of life for the patient (SF-36) was also recorded at six weeks, six months and one year. Data was collected by an independent research practitioner. Subjects: Multicentre study seven European centres: 107 patients Male 51, Female 66. Age ranged from 27 to 71. Mean age was 42 years with a clinical diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy, and single level disc disease on MRI. Outcome Measures: Odom Criteria, SF-36, radiological range of movement. Results: The Bryan Cervical Disc was associated with a clinical success according to Odom’s criteria of 87%. Radiological success occurred in 97%. SF-36 analysis revealed a statistically significant improvement in all domains. Conclusion: The Bryan Disc has been successfully implanted in 107 patients with good clinical results and at one-year follow-up there is radiological evidence of preserved motion

Aim. A retrospective review of the management of adjacent level discectomy and fusion using a Zero-P (Synthes) cage and report of ease of technique and outcomes. Method. Surgical approach to adjacent level cervical disc protrusion with previous anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) can be difficult. We review 4 patients who had previous ACDF with cage and plate who developed new onset adjacent level cervical disc prolepses causing myelopathy. A retrospective review of demographic data, symptoms, details of surgery, pre and post operative radiology, pre and postoperative ODI and pain score, length of stay, complications and follow-up data were collected in all patients. Results. Previous ACDF with plate was performed in all 4 patients an average of 11.6 years ago. Two patients had bilateral approaches previously and both had previous vascular injuries. The average duration of current symptoms was 9 months with a mean age of 65 years. All patients presented with myelopathy and two also had radiculopathy. Multiple level ACDF were operated in 2 patients previously. Revision surgery and dissection on the disc level was restricted by the previous plate. Screws from the previous plate fusion were removed adjacent to the level of surgery and discectomy was performed using distractor pins through the screw sites. Following discectomy a Zero-P cage was used to fusion with DBX under image intensifier guidance. The advantage was not to remove the previous plate and keep the dissection over the scar tissue to the minimal. All patients improved in their radicular symptoms with improvement of their hand function in the myelopaths. There was no complication and post operative radiographs were satisfactory. Conclusions. Use of the Zero-P cage for adjacent level discectomy and fusion was safe without disturbing the previous cage and plate fusion or stability

Introduction: Although anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a well-established technique for arthrodesis of the cervical spine, there are limited data on the use of allograft with plate in large series. There are even fewer such studies that incorporate three and four level fusions. We report our experience with 252 patients (530 levels). Methods: 252 patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with plate and allograft (91-one level, 74-two levels, 57-three levels, 30-four levels; 530 total levels) via a modified Smith-Robinson technique. Radiographic fusion was determined with plain X-rays at predetermined intervals. Fusion was defined as no lucent line and no hardware failure. Average follow-up was 22.5 months. Average age was 50 years (M 26, F 19). Comorbidities included 58 smokers and 16 diabetics. Patients wore an external orthosis for six weeks. Results: There were six reoperations for junctional disease outside the original fusion construct. 16 patient developed junctional disease. 28 levels had residual radiographic lucent lines and/or hardware failure at most recent follow-up for a fusion rate of 94.7% (502/530). Complications occurred in 32 patients (6.0%). There included 16 instances of hardware failure and/or pseudoarthrosis, nine of which occurred in the three and four level group, dysphagia (9), vocal cord dysfunction (2), respiratory distress (2), wound hematoma (2), wound infection (1). Conclusion/discussion: Extremely high fusion rates were recorded in this series, including three and four level constructs, with an acceptable complication rate. We believe that outstanding results are obtainable with allograft and plate, even at three or four levels. The principles of precise fit and fill of the interspace with a contoured graft and fixation with compression and instrumentation must be employed

This study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with rhBMP-2 and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with our standard treatment of allograft spacers and demineralised bone matrix. Forty-six patients who underwent primary ACDF were included in the study. Twenty two patients with PEEK spacers and rhBMP-2 were compared to twenty four patients with allograft spacers and demineralised bone matrix all supplemented with an anterior locking plate. All patients were examined preoperatively and at two, six, twelve and twenty-four weeks and one and two years following surgery. Their cervical Oswestry scores,VAS for neck and arm pain and a pain diagram were recorded at every visit. A radiographic examination was also performed and patients were questioned for dysphagia, hoarseness of voice and any other difficulties. Radiographs were evaluated for prevertebral swelling, bone formation, subsidence and likelihood of fusion. CT scans were performed in any individual at twelve months if there was a concern of non union. There was no significant difference in pain scores between rhBMP-2 and allograft spacer patients. There was improvement in both groups from their preoperative scores. Incidence of hoarseness of voice was also similar in both groups. There were statistically significant more patients with dysphagia in the rhBMP-2 group at two and six weeks following surgery. All patients in the rhBMP-2 group achieved a radiological diagnosis of probable fusion at their latest follow up (thirty-eight levels). In the allograft group 23/24 patients achieved a diagnosis of probable fusion (39/40 levels). End plate resorption was observed radiologically in 100% of the levels where rhBMP-2 was used. Prevertebral swelling on lateral radiographs was significantly greater in patients with rhBMP-2 causing dysphagia. The cost of implants was three times higher in patients with PEEK cage and rhBMP-2. The use of rhBMP-2 leads to consistent fusion in the cervical spine. Significantly higher rates of prevertebral swelling, dysphagia and s higher cost are major drawbacks. End plate resorption was an unusual radiographic finding with the use of rhBMP-2

Introduction: Autologous bone graft is currently considered the gold standard for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the harvesting of bone graft from the ilac crest is frequently associated with significant patient morbidity. We report on the safety and efficacy of trabecular metal blocks for achieving a stable interbody fusion for ACDF when compared to iliac crest bone graft for a small group of patients. Methods: This is a prospective trial of patients who underwent consecutive ACDFs between September 2004 and September 2007. Patients received one of two materials for their fusion, either trabecular metal blocks or autologous iliac crest bone graft. Each operation was performed by the same spinal surgeon (LT), and all patients had fixation with an anterior titanium plate to enhance interbody arthrodesis. Clinical outcome was assessed with a neck disability score (Vernon and Mior 1991) that was mailed to all participants; bone graft patients were also asked to complete a bone graft morbidity questionnaire (Silber et al. 2003). Radiological followup was assessed with computed tomography and flexion-extension radiographs. A minimum followup time of 3 months was required for inclusion into the study, and unpaired t-tests were used to evaluate statistical differences between relevant sets of data. Results: A total of 31 patients were included into the study, with 15 in the trabecular metal group (TM) and 16 in the iliac crest bone graft group (ICBG). The TM group included 10 males (67%) with a median age of 42 years (range 18–72). Median neck disability score was 18% (2–38) and stable bony ingrowth was observed in all patients (100%) on postoperative scans. Median followup time was 8 months (3–16) for TM patients and 20.3 months (7–36 months) for the ICBG group. In comparison, the ICBG group included 8 males (50%) with a median age of 53.3 years (43–70). Median neck disability score was worse at 30% (4–50), with a significant difference of 12% observed after t-test analysis (p value < 0.02). In addition, there was significant morbidity associated with the harvesting of autologous bone graft, with more than 50% of patients experiencing acute and/or chronic symptoms. Two radiological pseudoarthroses (8%) were observed postoperatively, of which one was manifested clinically. Discussion: These results confirm that, for our population group, trabecular metal implants are both safe and effective for use in ACDF when compared to the gold standard of autologous bone graft. Furthermore, trabecular metal implants avoid the morbidity associated with the harvesting of iliac crest bone graft. We believe the results so far are encouraging for our small group of patients but a larger, randomised control trial is needed to provide definitive results

The February 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: S2AI screws: At what cost?; Just how good is spinal deformity surgery?; Is 80 years of age too late in the day for spine surgery?; Factors affecting the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted surgery; Factors causing delay in discharge in patients eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion surgery; Anterior cervical discectomy or fusion and selective laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Surgery for cervical radiculopathy: what is the complication burden?; Hypercholesterolemia and neck pain; Return to work after surgery for cervical radiculopathy: a nationwide registry-based observational study.