Literature DB >> 16825047

A preliminary comparative study of radiographic results using mineralized collagen and bone marrow aspirate versus autologous bone in the same patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion.

Scott H Kitchel1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Multiple bone graft substitutes for spinal fusion have been studied with varying results.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a mineralized collagen matrix combined with bone marrow, versus autologous bone, in the same patients undergoing a posterior lumbar interbody fusion and an instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: A prospective, comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients indicated for one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion and instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion, serving as self-controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: Thin-cut computed tomographic scans with sagittal reconstruction and plain radiographs, including lateral flexion/extension views were performed and assessed at 12 and 24 months after surgery. Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale questionnaires were completed by all patients preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months after surgery.
METHODS: After informed consent and failure of nonoperative treatment, 25 consecutive patients requiring one-level instrumented posterolateral fusion combined with posterior interbody fusion were enrolled in the study. Mineralized collagen bone graft substitute combined with bone marrow aspirate was used on one side of the posterolateral fusion, with iliac crest autograft on the contralateral side.
RESULTS: A fusion rate of 84% (21/25) was achieved for the autologous bone grafts and 80% (20/25) for the bone graft substitute. The interbody fusion rate was 92% (23/25). Mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores decreased 57.2% at 12 months and 55.6% at 24 months, compared with baseline.
CONCLUSIONS: Mineralized collagen bone graft substitute exhibited similar radiographic results compared with autograft in this model. Further trials incorporating bilateral fusion, as well as posterolateral fusion alone without interbody fusion are warranted to confirm the results of this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16825047     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.09.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  12 in total

1.  A mouse model for the study of transplanted bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell survival and proliferation in lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Ioan A Lina; Wataru Ishida; Jason A Liauw; Sheng-Fu L Lo; Benjamin D Elder; Alexander Perdomo-Pantoja; Debebe Theodros; Timothy F Witham; Christina Holmes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Strategies of spinal fusion on osteoporotic spine.

Authors:  Sung Bae Park; Chun Kee Chung
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2011-06-30

3.  Instrumented fusion of thoracolumbar fracture with type I mineralized collagen matrix combined with autogenous bone marrow as a bone graft substitute: a four-case report.

Authors:  Antonio A Faundez; Sofia Taylor; André J Kaelin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-07-25       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Bone grafting options for lumbar spine surgery: a review examining clinical efficacy and complications.

Authors:  Kenneth Vaz; Kushagra Verma; Themistocles Protopsaltis; Frank Schwab; Baron Lonner; Thomas Errico
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2010-09-01

5.  Use of Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite With Autologous BMA and Local Bone in the Lumbar Spine: A Retrospective CT Analysis of Posterolateral Fusion Results.

Authors:  Stephen Robbins; Carl Lauryssen; Matthew N Songer
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.876

6.  Stem Cells in Spinal Fusion.

Authors:  Michael A Robbins; Dominik R Haudenschild; Adam M Wegner; Eric O Klineberg
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-09-01

Review 7.  Ceramic-based bone grafts as a bone grafts extender for lumbar spine arthrodesis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael S Nickoli; Wellington K Hsu
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2014-06-09

8.  How stem cell composition in bone marrow aspirate relates to clinical outcomes when used for cervical spine fusion.

Authors:  Christopher D Chaput; Adam Shar; Daniel Jupiter; Zach Hubert; Bret Clough; Ulf Krause; Carl A Gregory
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Fusion rates support wired allograft combined with instrumented craniocervical fixation in the paediatric population.

Authors:  Justus L Groen; Wilco C Peul; Willem Pondaag
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 10.  Substantial Overview on Mesenchymal Stem Cell Biological and Physical Properties as an Opportunity in Translational Medicine.

Authors:  Heba Abdelrazik; Emanuele Giordano; Giovanni Barbanti Brodano; Cristiana Griffoni; Elena De Falco; Alessandra Pelagalli
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.