OBJECTIVE The use of allograft cellular bone matrices (ACBMs) in spinal fusion has expanded rapidly over the last decade. Despite little objective data on its effectiveness, ACBM use has replaced the use of traditional autograft techniques, namely iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), in many centers. METHODS In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases of English-language articles over the time period from January 2001 to December 2020 to objectively assess the effectiveness of ACBMs, with an emphasis on the level of industry involvement in the current body of literature. RESULTS Limited animal studies (n = 5) demonstrate the efficacy of ACBMs in spinal fusion, with either equivalent or increased rates of fusion compared to autograft. Clinical human studies utilizing ACBMs as bone graft expanders or bone graft substitutes (n = 5 for the cervical spine and n = 8 for the lumbar spine) demonstrate the safety of ACBMs in spinal fusion, but fail to provide conclusive level I, II, or III evidence for its efficacy. Additionally, human studies are plagued with several limiting factors, such as small sample size, lack of prospective design, lack of randomization, absence of standardized assessment of fusion, and presence of industry support/relevant conflict of interest. CONCLUSIONS There exist very few objective, unbiased human clinical studies demonstrating ACBM effectiveness or superiority in spinal fusion. Impartial, well-designed prospective studies are needed to offer evidence-based best practices to patients in this domain.

No abstract

BackgroundOver the past two decades, the treatment of small-to-medium (<3cm) sporadic vestibular schwannomas (VS) has experienced a definite shift to stereotactic radiosurgery vis-a-vis microsurgery. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of VS patients primarily treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or microsurgery (MS), with particular attention to hearing preservation outcomes (HPO), tumor control (TC), and facial nerve dysfunction (FND).MethodsA systematic review was conducted (Medline and Scopus database) for the period, January 2010 to June 2020 with appropriate MeSH. English language articles for small-to-medium sporadic VS (<3cm) utilizing SRS or MS as treatment modality, with minimum follow-up of 3 years, were included. Studies had to report an acceptable standardized hearing metric. HPO, TC, and FND rates were analyzed. ResultsThirty-two studies met inclusion criteria: 10 for microsurgery; 23 for radiosurgery (one comparative study included in both). HPO, at ~65 months follow-up, were comparable between MS group (10 studies; 809 patients) and SRS group (23 studies; 1234 patients) (56% versus 59%, p=0.1527). TC, at ~70 months follow-up, was significantly better in MS group (9 studies; 1635 patients) versus SRS group (19 studies; 2260 patients) (98% versus 92%, p < 0.0001). FND, at ~ 12 months follow-up, was significantly higher in MS group (8 studies; 1101 patients) versus SRS group (17 studies; 2285 patients) (10% versus 2%, p < 0.0001).ConclusionMS and SRS are comparable primary treatment options for small (<3cm) sporadic VS with respect to HPO at 5-year follow-up in patients with serviceable hearing at presentation. Approximately 50% patients for both modalities will likely lose serviceable hearing by that time-point. High TC rates (>90%) were seen with both modalities, with MS (98%) significantly better than SRS (92%). The post-treatment FND was significantly less with SRS group (2%) versus MS group (10%).