Impact of Early Intervertebral Osseous Union After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion on Health-Related Quality of Life

Accelerated fusion dynamics by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, particularly in osteoporotic conditions

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Early fusion is crucial in interbody procedures to minimize mechanical complications resulting from delayed union, especially for patients with osteoporosis. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are used in spinal fusion procedures; however, limited evaluation exists regarding time-to-fusion for BMP use, particularly in patients with osteoporosis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the difference in time-to-fusion after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery between recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) usage and nonusage groups according to bone density.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective single-center cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

This study enrolled 132 patients (mean age, 65.25±8.66; male patients, 40.9%) who underwent single-level TLIF for degenerative disorders between February 2012 and December 2021, with pre and postoperative computed tomography (CT).

OUTCOME MEASURE

The interbody fusion mass and bone graft status on postoperative CT scans was obtained annually, and time-to-fusion was recorded for each patient.

METHODS

The patients were divided into 2 groups based on rhBMP-2 use during the interbody fusion procedure. Patients were further divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups based on preoperative L1 vertebral body attenuation values, using cutoffs of 90 and 120 Hounsfield units. It was strictly defined that fusion is considered complete when a trabecular bone bridge was formed, and therefore, the time-to-fusion was measured in years. Time-to-fusion was statistically compared between BMP group and non-BMP groups, followed by further comparison according to bone density.

RESULTS

The time-to-fusion differed significantly between BMP and non-BMP groups, with half of the patients achieving fusion within 2.5 years in the BMP group compared with 4 years in the non-BMP group (p<.001). The fusion rate varied based on bone density, with the maximum difference observed in the osteoporosis group, when half of the patients achieved fusion within 3 years in the BMP group compared to 5 years in the non-BMP group (p<.001). Subgroup analysis was conducted, revealing no significant associations between time-to-fusion and factors known to influence the fusion process, including age, gender, medical history, smoking and alcohol use, and medication history, except for rh-BMP2 use and bone density.

CONCLUSIONS

RhBMP-2 usage significantly reduced time-to-fusion in single-level TLIF, especially in patients with osteoporosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Paraspinal muscle endurance and morphology (PMEM) score: a new method for prediction of postoperative mechanical complications after lumbar fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although the relationships between paraspinal muscles and lumbar degenerative disorders have been acknowledged, paraspinal muscle evaluation has not been incorporated into clinical therapies.

PURPOSE

We aimed to establish a novel paraspinal muscle endurance and morphology (PMEM) score to better predict mechanical complications after lumbar fusion.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 212 patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion with at least 1 year of follow-up were finally included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mechanical complications including screw loosening, pseudarthrosis and other complications like cage subsidence, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated at last follow-up.

METHODS

The PMEM score comprised 1 functional muscular parameter (the performance time of the endurance test) and 2 imaging muscular parameters (relative functional cross-sectional area [rFCSA] of paraspinal extensor muscles [PEM] and psoas major [PS] on magnetic resonance imaging). The score was established based on a weighted scoring system created by rounding β regression coefficients to the nearest integer in univariate logistic regression. The diagnostic performance of the PMEM score was determined by binary logistic regression model and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with the area under the curve (AUC). Additionally, pairwise comparisons of ROC curves were conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of the PMEM score with conventional methods based on a single muscular parameter. Moreover, differences of mechanical complications and patient-reported outcomes among the PMEM categories were analyzed using Chi-square test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

The PMEM score, calculated by adding the scores for each parameter, ranges from 0 to 5 points. Patients with higher PMEM scores exhibited higher rates of mechanical complications (p<.001). Binary logistic regression revealed that the PMEM score was an independent factor of mechanical complications (p<.001, OR=2.002). Moreover, the AUC of the PMEM score (AUC=0.756) was significantly greater than those of the conventional methods including the endurance test (AUC=0.691, Z=2.036, p<.05), PEM rFCSA (AUC=.690, Z=2.016, p<.05) and PS rFCSA (AUC=0.640, Z=2.771, p<.01). In terms of the PMEM categories, a score of 0-1 was categorized as low-risk muscular state of mechanical complications; 2-3, as moderate; and 4-5, as high-risk state. Moving from the low-risk state to the high-risk state, there was a progressive increase in the rates of mechanical complications (13.8% vs. 32.1% vs. 72.7%; p<.001), and a decrease in the rates of clinically significant improvement of patient-reported outcomes (all p<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PMEM score might comprehensively evaluate paraspinal muscle degeneration and exhibit greater ability in predicting mechanical complications than the conventional evaluations after lumbar fusion. Surgeons might develop individualized treatment strategy tailored to different muscle degeneration statuses reflected by the PMEM score for decreasing the risk of mechanical complications.

Osteobiologics and Value-Based Care: Challenges and Opportunities

BACKGROUND

Autologous bone grafts, sourced from the iliac crest, are the gold standard for bone substitution in spine surgery. However, harvesting autografts increases the risk of postoperative complications. Bone allografts are another popular source of graft material, but their use is rapidly surpassing their availability. There has been considerable interest in manufactured bone graft substitutes, commonly referred to as osteobiologics, which mimic the properties of autologous bone and may be osteoconductive, osteoinductive, osteogenic, or a combination.

OBJECTIVE

Osteobiologics have been developed to mimic the properties of autologous bone, but their high cost and variable effectiveness raise questions about their value. This article explores the challenges and opportunities associated with the use of osteobiologics used to aid in bone healing in spinal fusion surgery within a value-based care framework. Spinal fusion treatments such as bone morphogenetic proteins, platelet-rich plasma, autologous conditioned serum, demineralized bone matrix, biomaterial scaffolds, stem cells, and cellular bone matrices are compared.

SUMMARY

Bone morphogenetic proteins are highly effective but often associated with serious risks; platelet-rich plasma shows promising results but lacks standardization in research protocols. Autologous conditioned serum is inconclusive and cost-effective, while demineralized bone matrix has variable effectiveness and limited data to use in anterior spinal fusions. Biomaterial scaffolds have limited application in the anterior spine but demonstrate high efficacy when it comes to spinal fusion. Stem cells demonstrate improved postsurgical outcomes but have low yield from bone marrow and potential risks associated with genetic engineering and cell therapy. Cellular bone matrices show promising results and have high fusion rates, yet there is currently no US Food and Drug Adminstration requirement for preclinical or clinical data before commercial usage. Although osteobiologics have considerable potential, their high price and uncertain efficiency raise questions concerning their usefulness in spinal fusion surgery. To ensure better patient outcomes, extensive research is needed to explore their utilization within a value-based care framework.

Trabecular Bone Remodeling After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Three-Dimensional Porous Tantalum and Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The criteria for determining completion of intervertebral stability after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) remain controversial. Several new radiological indicators of bone growth and osteointegration have been established. We compared computed tomography (CT) findings related to osteointegration after PLIF with interbody cages of two different materials and designs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 103 patients who underwent PLIF with three-dimensional porous tantalum (Tn) cages or titanium-coated polyetheretherketone (TiP) cages. CT images obtained 3 months and 1 year after surgery were examined for trabecular bone remodeling (TBR), cancellous condensation (CC), and vertebral endplate cyst (VEC) formation. The incidences of each finding were compared by cage type, and rates of instrument failure and pseudarthrosis were determined.

RESULTS

Three months postoperatively, 87% of the levels with Tn cages exhibited TBR, whereas 96% of those with TiP cages did not (P < .001). Most levels with Tn cages levels exhibited TBR and no CC 3 months (81%) and 1 year (94%) after surgery. Although 78% of levels with TiP cages exhibited CC and no TBR 3 months after surgery, 59% exhibited both CC and TBR 1 year after surgery. Significantly fewer VECs formed around the Tn cages than around the TiP cages both 3 months (P = .002) and 1 year (P < .001) after surgery. Implant-related problems occurred at levels that exhibited neither TBR nor CC.

CONCLUSIONS

The porous tantalum cage may enable intervertebral stability that is comparable to bony fusion soon after surgery.

Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review

Objective

With the advances in biological technologies over the past 20 years, a number of new therapies to promote bone healing have been introduced. Particularly in the spinal surgery field, more unprecedented biological therapeutics become available to enhance spinal fusion success rate along with advanced instrumentation approaches. Yet surgeons may not have been well informed about their safety and efficacy profiles in order to improve clinical practices. Therefore there is a need to summarize the evidence and bring the latest progress to surgeons for better clinical services for patients.

Methods

We comprehensively reviewed the literatures in regard to the biological therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion published in the last two decades.

Results

Autograft bone is still the gold standard for bone grafting in spinal fusion surgery due to its good osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic abilities. Accumulating evidence suggests that adding rhBMPs in combination with autograft effectively promotes the fusion rate and improves surgical outcomes. However, the stimulating effect on spinal fusion of other growth factors, including PDGF, VEGF, TGF-beta, and FGF, is not convincing, while Nell-1 and activin A exhibited preliminary efficacy. In terms of systemic therapeutic approaches, the osteoporosis drug Teriparatide has played a positive role in promoting bone healing after spinal surgery, while new medications such as denosumab and sclerostin antibodies still need further validation. Currently, other treatment, such as controlled-release formulations and carriers, are being studied for better releasing profile and the administration convenience of the active ingredients.

Conclusion

As the world's population continues to grow older, the number of spinal fusion cases grows substantially due to increased surgical needs for spinal degenerative disease (SDD). Critical advancements in biological therapeutics that promote spinal fusion have brought better clinical outcomes to patients lately. With the accumulation of higher-level evidence, the safety and efficacy of present and emerging products are becoming more evident. These emerging therapeutics will shift the landscape of perioperative therapy for the enhancement of spinal fusion.