Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies - Spinal DISC Center | Kris Radcliff, MD | New Jersey
Dr. Kris Radcliff specializes in simplifying the management of complex spine conditions and traumatic spine injuries, focusing exclusively on spine surgery, with particular expertise in the area of artificial disc replacement. Dr. Radcliff is highly experienced, having performed more than 10,000 spine surgeries. He combines conservative decision-making judgment with state-of-the-art and minimally invasive surgical techniques, endoscopic spine surgery, and artificial disc replacement.
Dr. Kris Radcliff, Kris Radcliff MD, Kris Radcliff, spinal disc center, spinal disc center new jersey, artificial disc replacement, artificial disc replacement specialist, endoscopic spine surgeon, endoscopic spine surgeon new jersey, new jersey spine surgeon, best spine surgeon in new jersey, minimally invasive spine surgery, MISS New Jersey, cervical spine surgery, cervical lamino-foraminatomy, cervical radiculopathy, artificial cervical disc replacement, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, posterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar microdiscectomy, lumbar laminectomy, minimally invasive tlif, ALIF, kyphoplasty, SI joint fusion, facet joint injections, treatment for neck pain, treatment for back pain, treatment for cervical myelopathy, treatment for cervical radiculopathy, treatment for cervical stenosis, treatment for compression fractures, treatment for degenerative disc disease, treatment for herniated disc, treatment for sciatica, treatment for si joint disorders, treatment for spinal stenosis
16755
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16755,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.0,wp-schema-pro-2.7.16,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-theme-ver-28.4,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_bottom,qode_advanced_footer_responsive_1000,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.7.0,vc_responsive,elementor-default,elementor-kit-16783
 

Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies

Abhijeet Kadam, Paul W Millhouse, Christopher K Kepler, Kris E Radcliff, Michael G Fehlings, Michael E Janssen, Rick C Sasso, James J Benedict, Alexander R Vaccaro: Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies. In: Int J Spine Surg, vol. 10, pp. 33, 2016, ISSN: 2211-4599.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A narrative review of literature.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript intends to provide a review of clinically relevant bone substitutes and bone expanders for spinal surgery in terms of efficacy and associated clinical outcomes, as reported in contemporary spine literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ever since the introduction of allograft as a substitute for autologous bone in spinal surgery, a sea of literature has surfaced, evaluating both established and newly emerging fusion alternatives. An understanding of the available fusion options and an organized evidence-based approach to their use in spine surgery is essential for achieving optimal results.

METHODS: A Medline search of English language literature published through March 2016 discussing bone graft substitutes and fusion extenders was performed. All clinical studies reporting radiological and/or patient outcomes following the use of bone substitutes were reviewed under the broad categories of Allografts, Demineralized Bone Matrices (DBM), Ceramics, Bone Morphogenic proteins (BMPs), Autologous growth factors (AGFs), Stem cell products and Synthetic Peptides. These were further grouped depending on their application in lumbar and cervical spine surgeries, deformity correction or other miscellaneous procedures viz. trauma, infection or tumors; wherever data was forthcoming. Studies in animal populations and experimental studies were excluded. Primary endpoints were radiological fusion rates and successful clinical outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 181 clinical studies were found suitable to be included in the review. More than a third of the published articles (62 studies, 34.25%) focused on BMP. Ceramics (40 studies) and Allografts (39 studies) were the other two highly published groups of bone substitutes. Highest radiographic fusion rates were observed with BMPs, followed by allograft and DBM. There were no significant differences in the reported clinical outcomes across all classes of bone substitutes.

CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear publication bias in the literature, mostly favoring BMP. Based on the available data, BMP is however associated with the highest radiographic fusion rate. Allograft is also very well corroborated in the literature. The use of DBM as a bone expander to augment autograft is supported, especially in the lumbar spine. Ceramics are also utilized as bone graft extenders and results are generally supportive, although limited. The use of autologous growth factors is not substantiated at this time. Cell matrix or stem cell-based products and the synthetic peptides have inadequate data. More comparative studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bone graft substitutes overall.

BibTeX (Download)

@article{pmid27909654,
title = {Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies},
author = {Abhijeet Kadam and Paul W Millhouse and Christopher K Kepler and Kris E Radcliff and Michael G Fehlings and Michael E Janssen and Rick C Sasso and James J Benedict and Alexander R Vaccaro},
doi = {10.14444/3033},
issn = {2211-4599},
year  = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
urldate = {2016-01-01},
journal = {Int J Spine Surg},
volume = {10},
pages = {33},
abstract = {STUDY DESIGN: A narrative review of literature.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript intends to provide a review of clinically relevant bone substitutes and bone expanders for spinal surgery in terms of efficacy and associated clinical outcomes, as reported in contemporary spine literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ever since the introduction of allograft as a substitute for autologous bone in spinal surgery, a sea of literature has surfaced, evaluating both established and newly emerging fusion alternatives. An understanding of the available fusion options and an organized evidence-based approach to their use in spine surgery is essential for achieving optimal results.

METHODS: A Medline search of English language literature published through March 2016 discussing bone graft substitutes and fusion extenders was performed. All clinical studies reporting radiological and/or patient outcomes following the use of bone substitutes were reviewed under the broad categories of Allografts, Demineralized Bone Matrices (DBM), Ceramics, Bone Morphogenic proteins (BMPs), Autologous growth factors (AGFs), Stem cell products and Synthetic Peptides. These were further grouped depending on their application in lumbar and cervical spine surgeries, deformity correction or other miscellaneous procedures viz. trauma, infection or tumors; wherever data was forthcoming. Studies in animal populations and experimental  studies were excluded. Primary endpoints were radiological fusion rates and successful clinical outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 181 clinical studies were found suitable to be included in the review. More than a third of the published articles (62 studies, 34.25%) focused on BMP. Ceramics (40 studies) and Allografts (39 studies) were the other two highly published groups of bone substitutes. Highest radiographic fusion rates were observed with BMPs, followed by allograft and DBM. There were no significant differences in the reported clinical outcomes across all classes of bone substitutes.

CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear publication bias in the literature, mostly favoring BMP. Based on the available data, BMP is however associated with the highest radiographic fusion rate. Allograft is also very well corroborated in the literature. The use of DBM as a bone expander to augment autograft is supported, especially in the lumbar spine. Ceramics are also utilized as bone graft extenders and results are generally supportive, although limited. The use of autologous growth factors is not substantiated at this time. Cell matrix or stem cell-based products and the synthetic peptides have inadequate data. More comparative studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bone graft substitutes overall.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.