Cargando…

Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of perioperative complications in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with allograft versus synthetic cage. METHODS: A large national administrative health care database was queried for ACDF pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goz, Vadim, Buser, Zorica, D’Oro, Anthony, Wang, Christopher, Yoon, S. Tim, Park, Jong-Beom, Youssef, Jim A., Meisel, Hans-Joerg, Wang, Jeffrey C., Brodke, Darrel S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6562209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31218196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568218797096
_version_ 1783426251555340288
author Goz, Vadim
Buser, Zorica
D’Oro, Anthony
Wang, Christopher
Yoon, S. Tim
Park, Jong-Beom
Youssef, Jim A.
Meisel, Hans-Joerg
Wang, Jeffrey C.
Brodke, Darrel S.
author_facet Goz, Vadim
Buser, Zorica
D’Oro, Anthony
Wang, Christopher
Yoon, S. Tim
Park, Jong-Beom
Youssef, Jim A.
Meisel, Hans-Joerg
Wang, Jeffrey C.
Brodke, Darrel S.
author_sort Goz, Vadim
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of perioperative complications in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with allograft versus synthetic cage. METHODS: A large national administrative health care database was queried for ACDF procedures performed between 2007 and 2014 using ICD-9 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 9th revision) and CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes. Cases that utilized structural allograft and synthetic cages were identified via CPT codes. Gender, age, frequency of obesity, cigarette use, diabetes, and number of levels fused were compared between the 2 cohorts using χ(2) test. Complications within 90 days were identified via ICD-9 codes and compared between the 2 cohorts. Revision rates within 2 years were noted. RESULTS: A total of 10 648 ACDF cases using synthetic cages and 7135 ACDFs using structural allograft were identified. The demographics between the 2 cohorts were similar. Overall complication rate was 8.71% in the synthetic cage group compared with 7.76% in the structural allograft group (P < .01). Use of synthetic cage was associated with higher rate of respiratory complications, 0.57% compared with 0.31% in the structural allograft cohort (P = .03), while use of structural allograft was associated with a higher rate of dysphagia, 0.64% compared with 0.33% (P < .01). Revision rate at 2 years was 0.50% and 0.56% in the synthetic cage and allograft groups, respectively (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: This data suggests that synthetic cages are associated with a marginally higher overall rate of complications with similar revision rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6562209
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65622092019-06-19 Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry Goz, Vadim Buser, Zorica D’Oro, Anthony Wang, Christopher Yoon, S. Tim Park, Jong-Beom Youssef, Jim A. Meisel, Hans-Joerg Wang, Jeffrey C. Brodke, Darrel S. Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of perioperative complications in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with allograft versus synthetic cage. METHODS: A large national administrative health care database was queried for ACDF procedures performed between 2007 and 2014 using ICD-9 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 9th revision) and CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes. Cases that utilized structural allograft and synthetic cages were identified via CPT codes. Gender, age, frequency of obesity, cigarette use, diabetes, and number of levels fused were compared between the 2 cohorts using χ(2) test. Complications within 90 days were identified via ICD-9 codes and compared between the 2 cohorts. Revision rates within 2 years were noted. RESULTS: A total of 10 648 ACDF cases using synthetic cages and 7135 ACDFs using structural allograft were identified. The demographics between the 2 cohorts were similar. Overall complication rate was 8.71% in the synthetic cage group compared with 7.76% in the structural allograft group (P < .01). Use of synthetic cage was associated with higher rate of respiratory complications, 0.57% compared with 0.31% in the structural allograft cohort (P = .03), while use of structural allograft was associated with a higher rate of dysphagia, 0.64% compared with 0.33% (P < .01). Revision rate at 2 years was 0.50% and 0.56% in the synthetic cage and allograft groups, respectively (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: This data suggests that synthetic cages are associated with a marginally higher overall rate of complications with similar revision rates. SAGE Publications 2018-09-06 2019-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6562209/ /pubmed/31218196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568218797096 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Goz, Vadim
Buser, Zorica
D’Oro, Anthony
Wang, Christopher
Yoon, S. Tim
Park, Jong-Beom
Youssef, Jim A.
Meisel, Hans-Joerg
Wang, Jeffrey C.
Brodke, Darrel S.
Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry
title Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry
title_full Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry
title_fullStr Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry
title_full_unstemmed Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry
title_short Complications and Risk Factors Using Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Cage: Analysis 17 783 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions Using a National Registry
title_sort complications and risk factors using structural allograft versus synthetic cage: analysis 17 783 anterior cervical discectomy and fusions using a national registry
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6562209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31218196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568218797096
work_keys_str_mv AT gozvadim complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT buserzorica complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT doroanthony complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT wangchristopher complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT yoonstim complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT parkjongbeom complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT youssefjima complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT meiselhansjoerg complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT wangjeffreyc complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry
AT brodkedarrels complicationsandriskfactorsusingstructuralallograftversussyntheticcageanalysis17783anteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionsusinganationalregistry