Literature DB >> 15014276

Two-year fusion rate equivalency between Grafton DBM gel and autograft in posterolateral spine fusion: a prospective controlled trial employing a side-by-side comparison in the same patient.

Frank P Cammisa1, Gary Lowery, Steven R Garfin, Fred H Geisler, Peter M Klara, Robert A McGuire, Walter R Sassard, Harrison Stubbs, Jon E Block.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective equivalency trial with each patient serving as his/her own control.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of a Grafton DBM gel composite with iliac crest autograft in posterolateral spine fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: While autograft remains the preferred graft material to facilitate spine fusion, the supply is limited and harvesting produces undesirable clinical consequences.
METHODS: A total of 120 patients underwent posterolateral spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation and bone grafting. Iliac crest autograft was implanted on one side of the spine and a Grafton DBM/autograft composite was implanted on the contralateral side in the same patient. An independent, blinded reviewer evaluated anteroposterior and lateral flexion-extension radiographs. The fusion mass lateral to the instrumentation on each side was judged fused or not, and the mineralization of the graft was rated absent, mild, moderate, or extensive. The degree of correspondence in outcomes between sides was estimated by computing the percentage agreement and kappa statistic.
RESULTS: Nearly 70% of patients (81 of 120) provided complete 24-month radiographic studies. The bone graft mass was fused in 42 cases (52%) on the Grafton DBMside and in 44 cases (54%) on the autograft side. The overall percentage agreement for fusion status between sides was approximately 75% (61 of 81), indicating moderately strong statistical correspondence (kappa = 0.51, P < 0.0001). Bone mineralization ratings also were similar between treated sides. Perfect agreement was realized in almost 60% of patients (48 of 81) with moderate statistical correspondence (weighted kappa = 0.54, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Grafton DBM can extend a smaller quantity of autograft than is normally required to achieve a solid spinal arthrodesis. Consequently, a reduced amount of harvested autograft may be required, potentially diminishing the risk and severity of donor site complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15014276     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000116588.17129.b9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  49 in total

Review 1.  [Bone harvesting from the iliac crest].

Authors:  M Jäger; B Westhoff; A Wild; R Krauspe
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  [Bone substitutes in scoliosis surgery].

Authors:  T Lerner; H Griefingholt; U Liljenqvist
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  An update on bone substitutes for spinal fusion.

Authors:  Masashi Miyazaki; Hiroshi Tsumura; Jeffrey C Wang; Ahmet Alanay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Current status of bone graft options for anterior interbody fusion of the cervical and lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anthony Minh Tien Chau; Lileane Liang Xu; Johnny Ho-Yin Wong; Ralph Jasper Mobbs
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 3.042

5.  Free vascularised fibular grafting with OsteoSet®2 demineralised bone matrix versus autograft for large osteonecrotic lesions of the femoral head.

Authors:  Yong Feng; Shanzhi Wang; Dongxu Jin; Jiagen Sheng; Shengbao Chen; Xiangguo Cheng; Changqing Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  The clinical use of allografts, demineralized bone matrices, synthetic bone graft substitutes and osteoinductive growth factors: a survey study.

Authors:  Mathias P G Bostrom; Daniel A Seigerman
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2005-09

7.  Clinical and radiographic evaluation of bioactive glass in posterior cervical and lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Théo Broussolle
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-06-24

8.  Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies.

Authors:  Abhijeet Kadam; Paul W Millhouse; Christopher K Kepler; Kris E Radcliff; Michael G Fehlings; Michael E Janssen; Rick C Sasso; James J Benedict; Alexander R Vaccaro
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-09-22

9.  Clinical outcomes of treatment with cage-shaped demineralized bone plus local bone grafts vs. autogenous iliac crest bone grafts in instrumented single-level lumbar fusion: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Chen-Guang Zhao; Jie Qin; Xin Wang; Gang Xu; Yong Jia; Yu-Cheng Guan; Xiang Mou; Hua Yuan
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 10.  A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures.

Authors:  Charla R Fischer; Ryan Cassilly; Winifred Cantor; Emmanuel Edusei; Qusai Hammouri; Thomas Errico
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.