Clinical Outcome After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a New Osteoinductive Bone Substitute Material: A Randomized Clinical Pilot Study

Biodegradable biomaterials in orthopedic surgery: A narrative review of the current evidence

BACKGROUND

Biomaterials are routinely used in orthopedic surgery to fill bone defects, improve bone healing, and as degradable fixation material. A wide range of materials are currently in use, and the materials are chosen according to their bioactive properties. Osteoinductive materials stimulate bone healing by promoting osteogenesis. Osteoconductive materials facilitate bone growth on the surface of the material. Despite the many materials in use and an increasing number of published studies, randomized controlled trials on the subject are scarce.

METHODS

This review aims to summarize the history of biodegradable biomaterials and also the published level I evidence currently available on orthopedic biomaterials.

RESULTS

Most of the studies have been superiority trials with non-significant differences compared to conventional treatment options, confirming that several biomaterials are suitable treatment options for multiple indications including bone and/or tendon fixation, filling bone defects, and spinal fusion. Biomaterials help to avoid donor site complications associated with autogenous bone grafts and often eliminate the need for implant removal. However, the surgical technique may in some cases be more demanding than with conventional methods. Careful consideration of the pros and cons is therefore recommended in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Biodegradable biomaterials complement the range of available treatment options in several fields of orthopedic surgery. However, some biomaterials performed worse than expected and were not recommended for clinical use, emphasizing the need for high-quality randomized trials. It is also noteworthy that several trials included only a limited number of patients, rendering the interpretation of the results of these underpowered studies challenging.

Preoperative conservative treatment is insufficiently described in clinical trials of lumbar fusion: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To identify how pre-surgical conservative care is characterized and reported in randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion, including duration and type of treatment.

METHODS

The study design is a scoping review. Data sources include PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials published in English between January 1, 2005, and February 15, 2022, assessing lumbar fusion as the intervention were included in this review.

RESULTS

Of 166 studies, 62.0% reported a failure in conservative care prior to lumbar fusion, but only 15.1% detailed the type of specific conservative care received. None of the trials provided sufficient details to understand the nature of the pre-surgical conservative treatment, such as frequency, recency/timing, or dosage of conservative interventions.

CONCLUSION

Although roughly two-thirds of trials reported that patients failed conservative care prior to receiving a lumbar fusion, few studies named the conservative intervention provided and no studies provided any details regarding dosing or recency of care. This lack of information creates ambiguity in the surgical decision-making process, setting the assumption that all patients received adequate conservative care prior to surgery. Details about pre-surgical conservative care should be disclosed to allow for appropriate clinical application, decision-making, and interpretation of treatment effects.

Application of nano-hydroxyapatite matrix graft in inter-vertebral fusion therapy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Nano-hydroxyapatite and its composites(nHA) have been widely used as grafts in inter-vertebral fusion. However, the safety and efficacy of the graft in inter-vertebral fusion is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of nHA and non-hydroxyapatite grafts (noHA) (autologous bone, etc.) in inter-body fusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in electronic database as follows: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) from inception until October 2022. Clinical studies on the effect of nHA and noHA in spinal fusion were collected. Analysis of outcome indicators using RevMan 5.4 statistical software.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis showed that the operation time of patients who underwent inter-body fusion with nHA grafts was less than that of patients who underwent noHA (p < 0.05). Compared with the noHA group, the nHA group can achieve similar clinical effects in the fusion rate(OR = 1.29,95%CI: 0.88 to 1.88,p = 0.19),Subsidence rate(OR = 1.2,95%CI:0.44 to 3.28,p = 0.72), inter-vertebral space height(SMD = 0.04,95%CI:-0.08 to 0.15,p = 0.54),Cobb angle(SMD = 0.21,95%CI: 0.18 to 0.6,p = 0.21),Blood loss(SMD = -36.58,95%CI: -81.45 to 8.29,p = 0.11),operative time in 12 months(SMD = -5.82,95%CI: -9.98 to -1.67,p = 0.006) and in the final follow-up(SMD = -0.38,95%CI: -0.51 to -0.26,p < 0.00001),ODI(SMD = 0.68,95%CI: -0.84 to 2.19,p = 0.38), VAS(SMD = 0.17,95%CI: -0.13 to 0.48,p = 0.27) and adverse events(OR = 0.98,95%CI: 0.66 to 1.45,p = 0.92), and the differences are not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that nHA matrix grafts are similar to noHA grafts in the safety and efficacy of spinal reconstruction, and are an ideal material for inter-vertebral bone grafting.

OLIF versus ALIF: Which is the better surgical approach for degenerative lumbar disease? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes between OLIF and ALIF in treating lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Changes in disc height (DH), segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between baseline and final follow-up, along with other important surgical outcomes, were assessed and analysed. Data on the global fusion rate and main complications were collected and compared.

RESULTS

Approximately, 2041 patients from 36 studies were included, consisting of 1057 patients who underwent OLIF and 984 patients who underwent ALIF. The results reveal no significant difference in DH, SLA, VAS score, and ODI between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The operation time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were also comparable between the two groups. Over 90% of the fusion rate was achieved in both groups. The OLIF group showed a higher complication rate than the ALIF group (OLIF 18.83% vs ALIF 7.32%).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF leads to a higher complication rate, with the most notable complication being cage subsidence. Both OLIF and ALIF are effective treatments for degenerative lumbar diseases and have similar therapeutic effects. ALIF was expected to be more expensive for patients because of the necessity of involving vascular surgeons.