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

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

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