Demineralized bone matrix, as a graft enhancer of auto-local bone in posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Comparison of Fusion Rates among Various Demineralized Bone Matrices in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Background and Objectives: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) plays a crucial role in addressing various spinal disorders. The success of PLIF is contingent upon achieving bone fusion, as failure can lead to adverse clinical outcomes. Demineralized bone matrix (DBM) has emerged as a promising solution for promoting fusion due to its unique combination of osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of three distinct DBMs (Exfuse®, Bongener®, and Bonfuse®) in achieving fusion rates in PLIF surgery. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 236 consecutive patients undergoing PLIF between September 2016 and February 2019. Patients over 50 years old with degenerative lumbar disease, receiving DBM, and following up for more than 12 months after surgery were included. Fusion was evaluated using the Bridwell grading system. Bridwell grades 1 and 2 were defined as 'fusion', while grades 3 and 4 were considered 'non-fusion.' Clinical outcomes were assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the European quality of life-5 (EQ-5D). Results: Fusion rates were 88.3% for Exfuse, 94.3% for Bongener, and 87.7% for Bonfuse, with no significant differences. All groups exhibited significant improvement in clinical outcomes at 12 months after surgery, but no significant differences were observed among the three groups. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in fusion rates and clinical outcomes among Exfuse, Bongener, and Bonfuse in PLIF surgery.

Demineralized Bone Matrix and Fibers in Spinal Fusion

Formation of bony fusion after arthrodesis depends on osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and osteogenesis. Traditionally, the patient's own bone, or autograft, has been used to provide biological material necessary for these steps. However, the amount of autograft obtainable is often inadequate. Modern spine surgery has adopted the use of many autograft extenders or replacements, such as demineralized bone matrix or fibers. The present article covers the history of bone grafting, the production and technical details of demineralized bone matrix, and the evidence supporting its use in spine fusions.

Demineralized Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery: A Review of Current Applications and Future Trends

BACKGROUND

Graft augmentation for spinal fusion is an area of continued interest, with a wide variety of available products lacking clear recommendations regarding appropriate use. While iliac crest autograft has long been considered the "gold standard", suboptimal fusion rates along with harvest-related concerns continue to drive the need for graft alternatives. There are now multiple options of products with various characteristics that are available. These include demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and demineralized bone fibers (DBF), which have been used increasingly to promote spine fusion. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated narrative on the use of DBM/DBF in spine surgery.

METHODS

Literature review.

RESULTS

The clinical application of DBM in spine surgery has evolved since its introduction in the mid-1900s. Early preclinical studies demonstrated its effectiveness in promoting fusion. When used in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, more recent clinical data suggest similar rates of fusion compared with autograft, although clinical studies are primarily limited to level III or IV evidence with few level I studies. However, significant variability in surgical technique and type of product used in the literature limits its interpretation and overall application.

CONCLUSIONS

DBM and DBF are bone graft options in spine surgery. Most commonly used as graft extenders, they have the ability to increase the volume of traditional grafting techniques while potentially inducing new bone formation. While the literature supports good fusion rates when used in the lumbar spine and when used with adjuvant cages or additional grafting techniques in the cervical spine, care should be taken when using as a stand-alone product. As new literature emerges, DBM and DBF can be a useful method in a surgeon's armamentarium for fusion-based procedures.

Surgical outcomes of two kinds of demineralized bone matrix putties/local autograft composites in instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion

Background

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of two kinds of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) putties/local autograft composites in instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).

Methods

Twenty-seven fusion segments of 19 patients, who underwent decompression and instrumented PLF for lumbar spinal stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis less than grade 1, were included in this study. The PLF mass consisted of different two kinds of DBMs (Grafton® and DBX®) and local autograft. Next, 7.5 cc of Grafton® DBM/local autograft composite was implanted on the left side, and the same amount of DBX® DBM/local autograft composite was implanted on the right side in the same patient. The PLF masses of 54 total sides (27 Grafton® sides and 27 DBX® sides) were assessed for fusion based on both flexion/extension lateral radiographs and computed tomography images at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Clinical symptoms were also evaluated.

Results

At 12 months postoperatively, the fusion rates for the Grafton® and DBX® sides were 59.5 and 51.9%, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.425). At 24 months postoperatively, the fusion rates for the Grafton® and DBX® sides increased to 70.4 and 66.7%, respectively, but the difference was still not statistically significant (P = 0.574). Diabetes mellitus, smoking, and obesity (body mass index ≥25) negatively affected the fusion rate of both the Grafton® and DBX® sides. Visual analog scores for lower back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved after surgery (both, P < 0.01). No deep or superficial infections occurred postoperatively. No patients underwent revision surgery due to nonunion during follow-up.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that two kinds of DBMs/local autograft composites might be considered as useful bone graft substitute in instrumented posterolateral fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis less than grade 1.

Comparison of Fusion Rate between Demineralized Bone Matrix versus Autograft in Lumbar Fusion : Meta-Analysis

The demineralized bone matrix (DBM) as the bone graft material to increase the fusion rate was widely used in spinal fusion. The current study aimed to compare the fusion rate of DBM to the fusion rate of autograft in lumbar spine fusion via meta-analysis of published literature. After systematic search, comparative studies were selected according to eligibility criteria. Checklist (risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized study) was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included nonrandomized controlled studies. The corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. We also used subgroup analysis to analyze the fusion rate of posterolateral lumbar fusion and lumbar interbody fusion. Eight studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. These eight studies included 581 patients. Among them, 337 patients underwent spinal fusion surgery using DBM (DBM group) and 204 patients underwent spinal fusion surgery with mainly autologous bone and without using DBM (control group). There was no significant differences of fusion rate between the two groups in posterolateral fusion analysis (risk ratio [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90–1.17; p=0.66) and interbody fusion analysis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91–1.39; p=0.27). Based on the available evidence, the use of DBM with autograft in posterolateral lumbar spine fusion and lumbar interbody fusion showed a slightly higher fusion rate than that of autograft alone; however, there was no statistically different between two groups.

Escherichia coli BMP-2 showed comparable osteoinductivity with Chinese hamster ovary derived BMP-2 with demineralized bone matrix as carrier

Escherichia coli bone morphogenetic protein-2 (ErhBMP-2) had a larger yield but less osteoinductivity than Chinese hamster ovary cell bone morphogenetic protein-2 (CrhBMP-2). Since the release profile of rhBMP-2 affects its osteoinductivity, an appropriate carrier could improve the effect of ErhBMP-2. Demineralized bone matrix (DBM) was one of the most widely used bone substitutes, but few studies evaluated the osteoinductivity of ErhBMP-2 while it was carried by DBM. Therefore, we compared the osteoinductivity of ErhBMP-2 with CrhBMP-2 with DBM as the carrier of each. In vitro results showed ErhBMP-2 had slightly less osteoinductivity than CrhBMP-2. However, with DBM as the carrier, ErhBMP-2 induced significantly more bone regeneration in rat calvaria defects. Therefore, ErhBMP-2 might have comparable osteoinductivity with CrhBMP-2 while carried by DBM.

Outcomes of Demineralized Bone Matrix Enriched with Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate in Lumbar Fusion

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have demonstrated that a significant amount of variability exists in various demineralized bone matrix (DBM) formulations, which casts doubts on its reliability in consistently promoting fusion. Bone marrow aspirate (BMA) is a cellular based graft that contains mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and growth factors can confer osteogenic and osteoinductive potential to DBM. The goal of this study was to describe the outcome of DBM enriched with concentrated BMA in patients undergoing combined lumbar interbody and posterolateral fusion.

METHODS

Eighty patients with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up were evaluated. Fusion and rates of complication were evaluated. Functional outcomes were assessed based on the modified Odom's criteria. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to examine the effects of independent variables on fusion outcome.

RESULTS

The overall rate of solid fusion (i.e patients with both solid posterolateral and interbody fusion) was 81.3% (65/80). Specifically, the radiographic evidence of solid posterolateral and interbody fusions were 81.3% (65/80) and 92.5% (74/80), respectively. Seven (8.75%) patients developed hardware-related complications, 2 (2.5%) patients developed a postoperative infection and 2 (2.5%) patients developed clinical pseudarthrosis. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) scores of 3 and 4 were associated with non-solid unions (CCI-3, p = 0.048; CCI-4, p = 0.03). Excellent or good outcomes were achieved in 58 (72.5%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing lumbar fusion using an enriched bone graft containing concentrated BMA added to DBM can achieve successful fusion with relatively low complications and good functional outcomes. Despite these findings, more studies with higher level of evidence are needed to better understand the efficacy of this promising graft option.

Growth factors in orthopaedic surgery: demineralized bone matrix versus recombinant bone morphogenetic proteins

During recent decades the utilisation of growth factors, especially BMPs, has received an increasing interest in orthopaedic surgery. For clinical implantation the two main options are demineralised bone matrix (DBM) and recombinant bone morphogenetic proteins (rhBMP). Many clinical studies agree on an equivalent osteoinductive effect between DBM, BMPs and autologous bone graft; however, the different origins and processing of DBM and rhBMP may introduce some fluctuations. Their respective characteristics are reviewed and possible interactions with their effectiveness are analysed. The main difference concerns the concentration of BMPs, which varies to an order of magnitude of 10(6) between DBM and rhBMPs. This may explain the variability in efficiency of some products and the adverse effects. Currently, considering osteoinductive properties, safety and availability, the DBM seems to offer several advantages. However, if DBM and rhBMPs are useful in some indications, their effectiveness and safety can be improved and more evidence-based studies are needed to better define the indications.