Allografts and Spinal Fusion

High Lumbar Spinal Fusion Rates Using Cellular Bone Allograft Irrespective of Surgical Approach

BACKGROUND

Mounting evidence demonstrates a promising safety and efficacy profile for spinal fusion procedures using cellular bone allograft (CBA). However, limited data exists on fusion outcomes stratified by surgical approach. The current study investigates the effectiveness of CBA in lumbar spinal fusion by surgical approach (ie, anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches).

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (Trinity Elite) were enrolled into a prospective, multi-center, open-label clinical study (NCT02969616). Fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and computed tomography images. Clinical outcome measures included quality of life (QoL; EQ5D), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) for back pain and leg pain). Patient data extending to 24 months were analyzed in a post-hoc analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients underwent interbody fusion (159 women; 93 men). Patients had a mean age of 58.3 years (SD 12.5), height of 168.3 cm (SD 10.2), and weight of 87.3 kg (SD 20.0) with a body mass index of 30.8 kg/m2 (SD 6.5). At 12 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.5%; fusion success was 98.1%, 100.0%, and 97.9% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. At 24 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.9%; fusion success was 97.9%, 100.0%, and 98.8% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. The surgical approach did not significantly impact fusion success. A significant (P < 0.0001) improvement in QoL, pain, and disability scores was also observed. Significant differences in the ODI, VAS, and EQ5D were observed between the treatment groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CBA represents an attractive alternative to autograft alone, reporting a high rate of successful fusion and clinical outcomes across various surgical approaches.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of CBA for spinal fusion procedures, regardless of surgical approach, provides high rates of fusion with a favorable safety profile and improved patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02969616.

Structural Allograft versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and structural allografts (SAs) are commonly used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), yet their postoperative results remain uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether there were any differences in outcomes between patients who received these two grafts in ACDF.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched electronic databases up to August 2023. Observational studies or randomized controlled trials reported postoperative outcomes, including fusion, subsidence, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcomes through the Neck Disability Index, the visual analog scale for neck and arm pain, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA)/modified JOA score following primary ACDF using SA or PEEK cage. The results are presented in odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, with 1213 patients (788 receiving SAs and 425 receiving PEEK cages). Patients having SA had significantly higher fusion (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.27-2.67; P = 0.001) and lower subsidence (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.30-0.86; P = 0.01) rates when compared with the PEEK cage. There was no difference in revision rate between SA or PEEK cage (P = 0.88). Two grafts demonstrated similar clinical improvements in Neck Disability Index (P = 0.31), visual analog scale for the neck (P = 0.77) and arm pain (P = 0.22), and JOA/modified JOA score (P = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

SA demonstrates better fusion and lower subsidence rates than the PEEK cage in ACDF. Nevertheless, SAs and PEEK cages resulted in equally successful postoperative clinical performances.

A Mechanistic and Preclinical Assessment of BioRestore Bioactive Glass as a Synthetic Bone Graft Extender and Substitute for Osteoinduction and Spine Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Preclinical animal study.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the osteoinductivity and bone regenerative capacity of BioRestore bioactive glass.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

BioRestore is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved bone void filler that has not yet been evaluated as a bone graft extender or substitute for spine fusion.

METHODS

In vitro and in vivo methods were used to compare BioRestore with other biomaterials for the capacity to promote osteodifferentiation and spinal fusion. The materials evaluated (1) absorbable collagen sponge (ACS), (2) allograft, (3) BioRestore, (4) Human Demineralized Bone Matrix (DBM), and (5) MasterGraft. For in vitro studies, rat bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) were cultured on the materials in either standard or osteogenic media (SM, OM), followed by quantification of osteogenic marker genes ( Runx2, Osx, Alpl, Bglap, Spp1 ) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. Sixty female Fischer rats underwent L4-5 posterolateral fusion (PLF) with placement of 1 of 5 implants: (1) ICBG from syngeneic rats; (2) ICBG+BioRestore; (3) BioRestore alone; (4) ICBG+Allograft; or (5) ICBG+MasterGraft. Spines were harvested 8 weeks postoperatively and evaluated for bone formation and fusion via radiography, blinded manual palpation, microCT, and histology.

RESULTS

After culture for 1 week, BioRestore promoted similar expression levels of Runx2 and Osx to cells grown on DBM. At the 2-week timepoint, the relative ALP activity for BioRestore-OM was significantly higher ( P <0.001) than that of ACS-OM and DBM-OM ( P <0.01) and statistically equivalent to cells grown on allograft-OM. In vivo, radiographic and microCT evaluation showed some degree of bridging bone formation in all groups tested, with the exception of BioRestore alone, which did not produce successful fusions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the capacity of BioRestore to promote osteoinductivity in vitro. In vivo, BioRestore performed similarly to commercially available bone graft extender materials but was incapable of producing fusion as a bone graft substitute.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions Using a Titanium Cage with a Biomimetic Surface

BACKGROUND

 We analyzed clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs) using a new biomimetic titanium fusion cage (Titan nanoLOCK interbody, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States). This specialized cage employs precise nanotechnology to stimulate inherent biochemical and cellular osteogenic reactions to the implant, aiming to amplify the rate of fusion. To our knowledge, this is the only study to assess early clinical and radiographic results in ALIFs.

METHODS

 We conducted a retrospective review of data for patients who underwent single or multilevel ALIF using this implant between October 2016 and April 2021. Indications for treatment were spondylolisthesis, postlaminectomy syndrome, or spinal deformity. Clinical and radiographic outcome data for these patients were collected and assessed.

RESULTS

 A total of 84 patients were included. The mean clinical follow-up was 36.6 ± 14 months. At 6 months, solid fusion was seen in 97.6% of patients. At 12 months, solid fusion was seen in 98.8% of patients. Significant improvements were seen in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index) at 6 and 12 months compared with the preoperative scores (p < 0.001). One patient required reoperation for broken pedicle screws 2 days after the ALIF. None of the patients required readmission within 90 days of surgery. No patients experienced an infection.

CONCLUSIONS

 ALIF using a new titanium interbody fusion implant with a biomimetic surface technology demonstrated high fusion rates (97.6%) as early as 6 months. There was significant improvement in PROMs at 6 and 12 months.

Bioactive Moldable Click Chemistry Polymer Cement with Nano-Hydroxyapatite and Growth Factor-Enhanced Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in a Rabbit Model

Spinal injuries or diseases necessitate effective fusion solutions, and common clinical approaches involve autografts, allografts, and various bone matrix products, each with limitations. To address these challenges, we developed an innovative moldable click chemistry polymer cement that can be shaped by hand and self-cross-linked in situ for spinal fusion. This self-cross-linking cement, enabled by the bioorthogonal click reaction, excludes the need for toxic initiators or external energy sources. The bioactivity of the cement was promoted by incorporating nanohydroxyapatite and microspheres loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor, fostering vascular induction and osteointegration. The release kinetics of growth factors, mechanical properties of the cement, and the ability of the scaffold to support in vitro cell proliferation and differentiation were evaluated. In a rabbit posterolateral spinal fusion model, the moldable cement exhibited remarkable induction of bone regeneration and effective bridging of spine vertebral bodies. This bioactive moldable click polymer cement therefore presents a promising biomaterial for spinal fusion augmentation, offering advantages in safety, ease of application, and enhanced bone regrowth.

Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery

The primary objective of this review is to evaluate whether the degree of processing and the clinical utility of commercially available mineralized bone allografts for spine surgery meet the 2020 US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guideline definitions for minimal manipulation and homologous use, respectively. We also assessed the consistency of performance of these products by examining the comparative postoperative radiographic fusion rates following spine surgery. Based on the FDA's criteria for determining whether a structural allograft averts regulatory oversight and classification as a drug/device/biologic, mineralized bone allografts were judged to meet the Agency's definitional descriptions for minimal manipulation and homologous use when complying with the American Association of Tissue Banks' (AATB) accredited guidelines for bone allograft harvesting, processing, storing and transplanting. Thus, these products do not require FDA medical device clearance. Radiographic fusion rates achieved with mineralized bone allografts were uniformly high (>85%) across three published systematic reviews. Little variation was found in the fusion rates irrespective of anatomical location, allograft geometry, dimensions or indication, and in most cases, the rates were similar to those for autologous bone alone. Continued utilization of mineralized bone allografts should be encouraged across all spine surgery applications where supplemental grafts and/or segmental stability are required to support mechanically solid arthrodeses.

Bone Grafts in Dental Medicine: An Overview of Autografts, Allografts and Synthetic Materials

This review provides an overview of various materials used in dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgeries to replace or repair bone defects. The choice of material depends on factors such as tissue viability, size, shape, and defect volume. While small bone defects can regenerate naturally, extensive defects or loss or pathological fractures require surgical intervention and the use of substitute bones. Autologous bone, taken from the patient's own body, is the gold standard for bone grafting but has drawbacks such as uncertain prognosis, surgery at the donor site, and limited availability. Other alternatives for medium and small-sized defects include allografts (from human donors), xenografts (from animals), and synthetic materials with osteoconductive properties. Allografts are carefully selected and processed human bone materials, while xenografts are derived from animals and possess similar chemical composition to human bone. Synthetic materials such as ceramics and bioactive glasses are used for small defects but may lack osteoinductivity and moldability. Calcium-phosphate-based ceramics, particularly hydroxyapatite, are extensively studied and commonly used due to their compositional similarity to natural bone. Additional components, such as growth factors, autogenous bone, and therapeutic elements, can be incorporated into synthetic or xenogeneic scaffolds to enhance their osteogenic properties. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of grafting materials in dentistry, discussing their properties, advantages, and disadvantages. It also highlights the challenges of analyzing in vivo and clinical studies to select the most suitable option for specific situations.