A large database study of hospitalization charges and follow-up re-admissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2)

Cellular Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery - Are They Worth the Risk: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature for complications and outcomes after the implantation of cellular bone matrix (CBM) during spine fusion.

METHODS

The PubMed database was queried from inception to January 31, 2023 for any articles that discussed the role of and identified a specific CBM in spinal fusion procedures. Adverse events, reoperations, methods, and fusion rates were collected from all studies and reported.

RESULTS

Six hundred articles were identified, of which 19 were included that reported outcomes of 7 different CBM products. Seven studies evaluated lumbar fusion, 11 evaluated cervical fusion, and 1 study reported adverse events of a single CBM product. Only 4 studies were comparative studies while others were limited to case series. Fusion rates ranged from 68% to 98.7% in the lumbar spine and 87% to 100% in the cervical spine, although criteria for radiographic fusion was variable. While 7 studies reported no adverse events, there was no strict consensus on what constituted a complication. One study reported catastrophic disseminated tuberculosis from donor contaminated CBM. The authors of 14 studies had conflicts of interest with either the manufacturer or distributor for their analyzed CBM.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the use of cellular bone matrix as an osteobiologic during spine surgery is weak and limited to low-grade non-comparative studies subject to industry funding. While reported fusion rates are high, the risk of severe complications should not be overlooked. Further large clinical trials are required to elucidate whether the CBMs offer any benefits that outweigh the risks.

Characterization of an advanced viable bone allograft with preserved native bone-forming cells

Bone grafts are widely used to successfully restore structure and function to patients with a broad range of musculoskeletal ailments and bone defects. Autogenous bone grafts are historically preferred because they theoretically contain the three essential components of bone healing (ie, osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, and osteogenicity), but they have inherent limitations. Allograft bone derived from deceased human donors is one alternative that is also capable of providing both an osteoconductive scaffold and osteoinductive potential but, until recently, lacked the osteogenic component of bone healing. Relatively new, cellular bone allografts (CBAs) were designed to address this need by preserving viable cells. Although most commercially-available CBAs feature mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), osteogenic differentiation is time-consuming and complex. A more advanced graft, a viable bone allograft (VBA), was thus developed to preserve lineage-committed bone-forming cells, which may be more suitable than MSCs to promote bone fusion. The purpose of this paper was to present the results of preclinical research characterizing VBA. Through a comprehensive series of in vitro and in vivo assays, the present results demonstrate that VBA in its final form is capable of providing all three essential bone remodeling properties and contains viable lineage-committed bone-forming cells, which do not elicit an immune response. The results are discussed in the context of clinical evidence published to date that further supports VBA as a potential alternative to autograft without the associated drawbacks.

A 24-month retrospective update: follow-up hospitalization charges and readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2)

Background

The objectives of this study were to build upon previously-reported 12-month findings by retrospectively comparing 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges and potentially-relevant readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries that employed either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a nationwide healthcare system database.

Methods

A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2 in the original study, of whom 3,792 patients (23.4%) were identified in the current study with all-cause readmissions during the 24-month follow-up period. Confounding baseline patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics found in the original study were used to adjust multivariate regression models comparing differences in 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges (in 2020 US dollars) and lengths of stay (LOS; in days) between the groups. Differences in potentially-relevant follow-up readmissions were also compared, and all analyses were repeated in the subset of patients who only received treatment at a single level of the spine.

Results

The adjusted cumulative mean 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges in the full cohort were significantly lower in the V-CBA group ($99,087) versus the rhBMP-2 group ($124,389; P < 0.0001), and this pattern remained in the single-level cohort (V-CBA = $104,906 vs rhBMP-2 = $125,311; P = 0.0006). There were no differences between groups in adjusted cumulative mean LOS in either cohort. Differences in the rates of follow-up readmissions aligned with baseline comorbidities originally reported for the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were significantly lower for V-CBA patients in the full cohort (10.12% vs 12.00%; P = 0.0002) and similar between groups in the single-level cohort, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes, including bony fusion.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US is associated with substantially lower 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of subsequent lumbar fusion procedures and potentially-relevant readmissions.

Allografts and Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

Back pain is a common chief complaint within the United States and is caused by a multitude of etiologies. There are many different treatment modalities for back pain, with a frequent option being spinal fusion procedures. The success of spinal fusion greatly depends on instrumentation, construct design, and bone grafts used in surgery. Bone allografts are important for both structural integrity and providing a scaffold for bone fusion to occur.

METHOD

Searches were performed using terms "allografts" and "bone" as well as product names in peer reviewed literature Pubmed, Google Scholar, FDA-510k approvals, and clinicaltrials.gov.

RESULTS

This study is a review of allografts and focuses on currently available products and their success in both animal and clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Bone grafts used in surgery are generally categorized into 3 main types: autogenous (from patient's own body), allograft (from cadaveric or living donor), and synthetic. This paper focuses on allografts and provides an overview on the different subtypes with an emphasis on recent product development and uses in spinal fusion surgery.