LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Spine/Location, Location: Why Your ACDF Graft’s Real Estate Matters
Spine

Location, Location: Why Your ACDF Graft’s Real Estate Matters

December 22, 2025 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Location, Location: Why Your ACDF Graft’s Real Estate Matters
Source: Andrew Huth and RRY Publications LLC
StudiesSpine Journalanterior cervical discectomy and fusionposterior grafts

If you’ve ever stood at the C-arm wondering “Is that graft a hair too posterior?,” congratulations — you’re already thinking like the authors of this study.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) may be the most familiar play in the cervical spine playbook, but pseudarthrosis remains its most stubborn plot twist. Despite solid implants, pristine technique, and a textbook closure, some fusions just don’t fuse. So, what gives?

According to one research team, the answer might be surprisingly simple: where you park the graft.

Millimeters That Matter

This case-control study examined 118 patients undergoing single- and multi-level ACDF, totaling 221 fusion levels. Using dynamic radiographs, the authors classified each level as fused or meeting the criteria for pseudarthrosis.

Then came the key question: Was the interbody graft sitting more anterior — or more posterior — within the disc space?

To keep things honest, the team brought in multivariable regression and propensity score matching, controlling for demographics, surgical variables, and implant factors. In other words, this wasn’t just eyeballing lateral X-rays over coffee.

Posterior Grafts, Anterior Problems

Advertisement

Here’s where it gets interesting:

  • Only 62% of levels fused, while 38% met criteria for pseudarthrosis (a sobering reminder we’re all human).
  • Fused levels had more free space posterior to the graft — about 1mm more, which in spine surgery is basically an eternity.
  • Every extra millimeter of posterior free space reduced the odds of pseudarthrosis.

After matching anterior and posterior graft placements apples-to-apples:

  • Anterior grafts: approximately 29% pseudarthrosis
  • Posterior grafts: approximately 52% pseudarthrosis

That’s not subtle. That’s a warning shot.

Why might this matter biomechanically?

While the study didn’t dive deep into mechanics, the implications are hard to ignore:

  • An anteriorly placed graft may better resist flexion forces
  • It may promote more favorable load sharing across the disc space
  • A posterior graft, meanwhile, may invite micromotion — the sworn enemy of fusion

In short: posterior grafts may be setting the stage for motion where you want rigidity.

The Take-Home Message

When it comes to ACDF, millimeters matter.

Advertisement

This study suggests that posterior graft placement significantly increases the risk of pseudarthrosis, while anterior positioning may quietly boost fusion success — in both single- and multi-level cases.

So next time you’re tapping that graft into place, remember: anterior is not just cosmetic — it may be biologically strategic.

Origin Study Title: The Effect of Positional Graft Placement on Pseudarthrosis Rates in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Authors: Shabani, Soroush B.S.; Yoshida, Brandon M.D.; Ton, Andy M.D.; Karakash, William B.S.; Avetisian, Henry B.S.; Rusu, Daniel B.S.; Lindgren, Aidan B.S.; Mills, Emily M.D.; Wang, Jeffrey C. M.D.; Hah, Raymond J. M.D.; Alluri, Ram K. M.D.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy