To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Lower fusion rates observed with Trabecular Metal versus Smith-Robinson for ACDF

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
March 2013

Lower fusion rates observed with Trabecular Metal versus Smith-Robinson for ACDF

Vol: 2| Issue: 2| Number:93| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Clinical and radiological evaluation of Trabecular Metal and the Smith-Robinson technique in anterior cervical fusion for degenerative disease: A prospective, randomized, controlled study with 2-year follow-up

Eur Spine J. 2010 Mar;19(3):464-73. Epub 2009 Sep 18

Contributing Authors:
H Lofgren M Engquist P Hoffmann B Sigstedt L Vavruch

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

80 patients scheduled to undergo anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) were randomized to receive an application of porous tantalum metal (TM) trabecular graft or the standard Smith-Robinson (SR) iliac crest autograft. Patients treated with TM were observed to have lower fusion rates compared to those treated with SR. Both treatments had similar clinical outcomes in the 2 year study pe...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue