4.4 Article

ACDF Graft Selection by Surgeons: Survey of AOSpine Members

Journal

GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 410-416

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2192568217699200

Keywords

ACDF; graft; AO Spine members; survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Objective: To determine what are the most commonly used graft materials in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and whether the choice of graft is affected by surgeon's training, years in practice, geographic location, practice setting, or surgeon's perceived difficulty in achieving fusion. Methods: A 23-question survey was sent out to 5334 surgeons using the Global AO Spine database. Response data was then stratified into surgeon training, years of practice, practice type, and global region. Results: Overall, surgeons believe that graft selection affects fusion rates (89.3% of surgeons) and affects time to fusion (86.0% of surgeons). The use of a cage is currently the most common structural graft component used worldwide at 64.1%. Of surgeons that use cages, the PEEK Cage makes up 84%. North American surgeons differ from this global trend and use composite allograft more commonly. The choice to add a nonstructural graft component was reported at 74%. This result was similar for performing multilevel fusions at 72.8%. The selection of nonstructural graft material depends on whether the type of surgery is considered simple or complex. Most surgeons are not satisfied with available literature comparing effectiveness of grafts but believed that there was sufficient evidence to support the use of their chosen graft. Conclusion: Almost all surgeons believe that fusion is important to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery outcomes and that most surgeons believe graft choice affects fusion. However, this survey indicates that there is great variability in the type of graft material used by spine surgeons across the world.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available