A prospective comparative study of radiological outcomes after instrumented posterolateral fusion mass using autologous local bone or a mixture of beta-tcp and autologous local bone in the same patient

Increasing Fusion Rate Between 1 and 2 Years After Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion and the Role of Bone Grafting

STUDY DESIGN

Two-year clinical and radiographic follow-up of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, intra-patient controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing a bone graft substitute (AttraX Putty) with autograft in instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare PLF rates between 1 and 2 years of follow-up and between graft types, and to explore the role of bone grafting based on the location of the PLF mass.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There are indications that bony fusion proceeds over time, but it is unknown to what extent this can be related to bone grafting.

METHODS

A total of 100 adult patients underwent a primary, single- or multilevel, thoracolumbar PLF. After instrumentation and preparation for grafting, the randomized allocation side of AttraX Putty was disclosed. The contralateral posterolateral gutters were grafted with autograft. At 1-year follow-up, and in case of no fusion at 2 years, the fusion status of both sides of each segment was blindly assessed on CT scans. Intertransverse and facet fusion were scored separately. Difference in fusion rates after 1 and 2 years and between grafts were analyzed with a Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

The 2-year PLF rate (66 patients) was 70% at the AttraX Putty and 68% at the autograft side, compared to 55% and 52% after 1 year (87 patients). GEE analysis demonstrated a significant increase for both conditions (odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.5-2.7, P < 0.001), but no difference between the grafts (P = 0.595). Ongoing bone formation was only observed between the facet joints.

CONCLUSION

This intra-patient controlled trial demonstrated a significant increase in PLF rate between 1 and 2 years after instrumented thoracolumbar fusion, but no difference between AttraX Putty and autograft. Based on the location of the PLF mass, this increase is most likely the result of immobilization instead of grafting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Spinal fusion procedures in the adult and young population: a systematic review on allogenic bone and synthetic grafts when compared to autologous bone

This systematic review aims to compare clinical evidences related to autologous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) and non-ICBG (local bone) with allografts and synthetic grafts for spinal fusion procedures in adult and young patients. A systematic search was carried out in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to identify clinical studies in the last 10 years. The initial search retrieved 1085 studies, of which 24 were recognized eligible for the review. Twelve studies (4 RCTs, 5 prospective, 3 retrospective) were focused on lumbar spine, 9 (2 RCTs, 2 prospective, 4 retrospective, 1 case-series) on cervical spine and 3 (1 RCT, 2 retrospective) on spinal fusion procedures in young patients. Calcium phosphate ceramics, allografts, bioglasses, composites and polymers have been clinically investigated as substitutes of autologous bone in spinal fusion procedures. Of the 24 studies included in this review, only 1 RCT on cervical spine was classified with high level of evidence (Class I) and showed low risk of bias. This RCT demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the proposed treatment, a composite bone substitute, that results in similar and on some metrics superior outcomes compared with local autograft bone. Almost all other studies showed moderately or, more often, high incidence of bias (Class III), thus preventing ultimate conclusion on the hypothesized beneficial effects of allografts and synthetic grafts. This review suggests that users of allografts and synthetic grafting should carefully consider the scientific evidence concerning efficacy and safety of these bone substitutes, in order to select the best option for patient undergoing spinal fusion procedures.

An inception cohort study of patients in a military clinic treated for lower back pain with lumbar fusion and SIGNAFUSE® with a systematic review of the literature

Background: Use of synthetic bone graft substitutes for spinal fusion has increased sharply over the past 20 years. SIGNAFUSE® is one such synthetic graft material that provides an osteostimulatory effect for spinal fusion. Because clinical trials are not required for commercialization of synthetic bone graft substitutes in the United States, fusion rates attained using SIGNAFUSE for lumbar fusion are not well documented. The goal of the current study is to determine the rate of spinal fusion in a military clinic following lumbar fusion surgery augmented with SIGNAFUSE. Methods: We report a retrospective chart review of 8 patients who received lumbar spinal fusion surgery augmented with SIGNAFUSE. All patients were assessed by computed tomographic (CT) imaging at least 1-year post-surgery to determine whether bony fusion had occurred. We also systematically reviewed literature sources that report fusion rate following spinal fusion surgery, for broader context. Results: An average of 1.6 spinal levels were treated with SIGNAFUSE-loaded interbody cages. All patients had stabilization hardware via pedicle screws or integrated cage fixation. Seven of 8 patients successfully fused, for an overall fusion rate of 87.5% (95% confidence interval: 47.4% to 99.7%). Systematic review of 26 recent publications that included 1,126 patients treated with synthetic bone graft showed that the overall fusion rate in the literature is 84.4%. Conclusions: Fusion was achieved in 87.5% of patients treated with SIGNAFUSE. This is comparable to the fusion rate in a systematic review of 1,126 patients treated with synthetic bone graft materials.

Budget impact analysis of demineralized bone matrix in combination with autograft in lumbar spinal fusion procedures for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact (BI) of introducing local autograft (LA) combined with demineralized bone matrix (LA + DBM) in lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) procedures to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) in Spain.

METHODS

A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the 4-year BI associated with introducing LA + DBM putty to replace currently available grafting methods, including iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), LA alone, and LA combined with beta-tricalcium phosphate (LA + ceramics), with 30%, 40%, and 30% market shares, respectively. The analysis was conducted for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with LDDD receiving LSF, assuming LA + DBM would replace 100% of the standard of care mix. The fusion rates extracted from the literature were validated by an expert panel. Costs (€2017) were obtained from different Spanish sources. Budget impact and incremental cost per successful fusion were calculated from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

RESULTS

Over 4 years, replacing currently available options with LA + DBM for 100 patients resulted in an additional cost of €12,330 (€123/patient), and an additional 14 successful fusions, implying a cost of €881 per additional successful fusion. When costs of productivity loss were included, the introduction of LA + DBM resulted in cost savings of €70,294 (€703/patient).

LIMITATIONS

The lack of high-quality, homogeneous, head-to-head research studying the efficacy of grafting procedures available to patients undergoing LSF, in addition to a lack of long-term follow-up in existing studies. Therefore, the number of fusions occurring within the model's time horizon may be underestimated.

CONCLUSIONS

Acquisition costs of DBM were partially offset by costs of failed fusions, adverse events and reoperation when switching 100 hypothetical LDDD patients undergoing LSF procedures from standard of care grafting methods to LA + DBM from the perspective of the Spanish NHS. DBM cost was entirely offset when costs of lost productivity were considered.

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

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 in vitro 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.

Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review

The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of synthetic bone graft substitutes versus autograft or allograft for the treatment of lumbar and cervical spinal degenerative diseases. Multiple major medical reference databases were searched for studies that evaluated spinal fusion using synthetic bone graft substitutes (either alone or with an autograft or allograft) compared with autograft and allograft. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with more than 10 patients were included. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. The search yielded 214 citations with 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. For the patients with lumbar spinal degenerative disease, data from 19 comparative studies were included: 3 RCTs, 12 prospective, and 4 retrospective studies. Hydroxyapatite (HA), HA+collagen, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), calcium sulfate, or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) were used. Overall, there were no differences between the treatment groups in terms of fusion, functional outcomes, or complications, except in 1 study that found higher rates of HA graft absorption. For the patients with cervical degenerative conditions, data from 8 comparative studies were included: 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies (1 prospective and 3 retrospective studies). Synthetic grafts included HA, β-TCP/HA, PMMA, and biocompatible osteoconductive polymer (BOP). The PMMA and BOP grafts led to lower fusion rates, and PMMA, HA, and BOP had greater risks of graft fragmentation, settling, and instrumentation problems compared with iliac crest bone graft. The overall quality of evidence evaluating the potential use and superiority of the synthetic biological materials for lumbar and cervical fusion in this systematic review was low or insufficient, largely due to the high potential for bias and small sample sizes. Thus, definitive conclusions or recommendations regarding the use of these synthetic materials should be made cautiously and within the context of the limitations of the evidence.

Natural hydroxyapatite as a bone graft extender for posterolateral spine arthrodesis

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective analysis of spinal fusion, was to document the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes with a local bone graft plus the highly osteoconductive hydroxyapatite, bio-derived Orthoss®, with or without bone marrow aspirate.

METHODS

Forty seven patients submitted to spinal posterolateral fusion were operated for four major indications: scoliosis in young patients (11), degenerative spine (18), lumbosacral transitional anomalies in young adults (14), and spine trauma (four). Sixteen patients had more than four levels fused. In addition to spinal decompression and instrumented fusion, autologous bone grafts from the excised lamina were augmented with Orthoss® granules in a 1:1 ratio. In addition iliac crest bone marrow aspirate was used in 70 % of the patients. The results were assessed clinically in terms of pain, and return to school or professional activities were checked at three, six, and 12 months following surgery with a mean follow-up of 20 months. In scoliotic patients, correction of the major angle was evaluated from one to four years after surgery.

RESULTS

Pain persistence was reported only in four cases, after three months after surgery. A functional recovery was noted in almost all patients groups within these three months. Progressive bone formation with evidence of bone fusion masses were already observed at six months. No fusion failure was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Local bone enhanced by an osteoconductive long-term stable scaffold, used with and without bone marrow aspirate, led to successful fusion in all patients by six months while functional recovery was reported already within three to six months.