Heterotopic ossification following use of i-Factor for spinal fusion in Mucopolysaccharidosis 1: a case report

Safety and Reoperation Rates in Non-instrumented Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Secondary Report From a Randomized Controlled Trial of ABM/P-15 vs Allograft With Minimum 5 years Follow-Up

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with minimum of 5-years follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the peri- and postoperative complications rates, ectopic bone migration, and reoperation rates, and secondly evaluate the 5-year patient reported outcomes (PROs), in patients treated with decompression and non-instrumented posterolateral fusion with ABM/P-15 or allograft.

METHODS

Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis were enrolled in a Randomized Clinical Trial and randomized 1:1 to either ABM/P-15 or allograft bone. Patient Reported Outcomes were collected at 5-year follow-up, and patients were invited to a clinical follow-up including a computed tomography scan (CT) to evaluate signs of osteolysis, ectopic bone formation, and bone migration.

RESULTS

Of 101 subjects enrolled in the primary study, 83 patients were available for the 5-year follow-up. We found a statistically significant difference in back pain and Oswestry Disability Index between groups. Fifty-eight patients agreed to participate in the CT study. Sixty percentage in the ABM/P-15 group vs 30% in the allograft group was classified as fused (P = .037). There were no differences in complications, reoperation-, or infection rates between the 2 groups. We found 2 patients with migration of graft material. Both patients were asymptomatic at minimum 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that complication rates are no higher in patients treated with ABM/P-15 than allograft. We found significantly higher fusion rates in the AMB/P-15 group than in the allograft group, and patients in the ABM/P-15 group reported less back pain and lower disability score at 5-year follow-up.

Commercial Bone Grafts Claimed as an Alternative to Autografts: Current Trends for Clinical Applications in Orthopaedics

In the last twenty years, due to an increasing medical and market demand for orthopaedic implants, several grafting options have been developed. However, when alternative bone augmentation materials mimicking autografts are searched on the market, commercially available products may be grouped into three main categories: cellular bone matrices, growth factor enhanced bone grafts, and peptide enhanced xeno-hybrid bone grafts. Firstly, to obtain data for this review, the search engines Google and Bing were employed to acquire information from reports or website portfolios of important competitors in the global bone graft market. Secondly, bibliographic databases such as Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were also employed to analyse data from preclinical/clinical studies performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of each product released on the market. Here, we discuss several products in terms of osteogenic/osteoinductive/osteoconductive properties, safety, efficacy, and side effects, as well as regulatory issues and costs. Although both positive and negative results were reported in clinical applications for each class of products, to date, peptide enhanced xeno-hybrid bone grafts may represent the best choice in terms of risk/benefit ratio. Nevertheless, more prospective and controlled studies are needed before approval for routine clinical use.