Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Ryan Jarrah x
  • Refine by Access: all x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Brian Fiani, Ryan Jarrah, Jennifer Shields, and Manraj Sekhon

OBJECTIVE

Spinal fusions are among the most common and effective spinal surgical practices; however, the current model presents some cost and safety concerns within the patient population. Therefore, enhanced biomaterials have been presented to be an innovative yet underutilized tool to supplement the success of spinal fusion surgery. Herein, the authors discuss these biomaterials, their compositions, clinical outcomes, and cost analysis through a systematic review of the literature to date.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria and guidelines. Article selection was performed using the PubMed electronic bibliographic databases. The search yielded 1168 articles that were assessed and filtered for relevance by the four authors. Following the screening of titles and abstracts, 62 articles were deemed significant enough for final selection.

RESULTS

To date, silicon nitride, bioactive glass, amino peptide bone grafts, and tantalum are all biomaterials that could have significant roles in supporting spinal fusion. Their unique compositions allow them to be biocompatible in the spine, and their mechanisms of action stimulate osteoblast formation and support fusion success. Moreover, these biomaterials also present positive clinical and cost outcomes that support their application in spinal procedures. However, further studies with longer follow-ups are necessary to fully understand these biomaterials prior to their incorporation in mainstream spinal practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of their positive clinical outcomes, biocompatibility, and cost-effectiveness makes these biomaterials valuable, innovative, and effective treatment modalities that could revolutionize the current model of spinal fusion.

Restricted access

Giorgos D. Michalopoulos, Archis R. Bhandarkar, Ryan Jarrah, Yagiz Ugur Yolcu, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Abdul Karim Ghaith, Arjun S. Sebastian, Brett A. Freedman, and Mohamad Bydon

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid surgery (HS) is the combination of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) at different levels in the same operation. The aim of this study was to investigate perioperative variables, 30-day postoperative outcomes, and complications of HS in comparison with those of CDA and ACDF.

METHODS

The authors queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) registry for patients who underwent multilevel primary HS, CDA, and ACDF for degenerative disc disease from 2015 to 2019. The authors compared these three operations in terms of 30-day postoperative outcomes, specifically readmission and reoperation rates, discharge destination, and complications.

RESULTS

This analysis included 439 patients who underwent HS, 976 patients who underwent CDA, and 27,460 patients who underwent ACDF. Patients in the HS and CDA groups were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and myelopathy was less often the indication for surgery compared with patients who underwent ACDF. For the HS group, the unplanned readmission rate was 0.7%, index surgery–related reoperation rate was 0.3%, and nonroutine discharge rate was 2.1%. Major and minor complications were also rare, with rates of 0.2% for each. The mean length of stay in the HS group was 1.5 days. The association of HS with better outcomes in univariate analysis was not evident after adjustment for confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found that HS was noninferior to ACDF and CDA in terms of early postoperative outcomes among patients treated for degenerative disc disease.