Literature DB >> 22076647

Grafton and local bone have comparable outcomes to iliac crest bone in instrumented single-level lumbar fusions.

James Kang1, Howard An, Alan Hilibrand, S Tim Yoon, Eoin Kavanagh, Scott Boden.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective multicenter randomized clinical trail.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of our 2-year prospective study was to perform a randomized clinical trial comparing the outcomes of Grafton demineralized bone matrix (DBM) Matrix with local bone with that of iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) in a single-level instrumented posterior lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There has been extensive research and development in identifying a suitable substitute to replace autologous ICBG that is associated with known morbidities. DBMs are a class of commercially available grafting agents that are prepared from allograft bone. Many such products have been commercially available for clinical use; however, their efficacy for spine fusion has been mostly based on anecdotal evidence rather than randomized controlled clinical trials.
METHODS: Forty-six patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive Grafton DBM Matrix with local bone (30 patients) or autologous ICBG (16 patients). The mean age was 64 (females [F] = 21, males [M] = 9) in the DBM group and 65 (F = 9, M = 5) in the ICBG group. An independent radiologist evaluated plain radiographs and computed tomographic scans at 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. Clinical outcomes were measured using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients (DBM = 28 and ICBG = 13) completed the 2-year follow-up. Final fusion rates were 86% (Grafton Matrix) versus 92% (ICBG) (P = 1.0 not significant). The Grafton group showed slightly better improvement in ODI score than the ICBG group at the final 2-year follow-up (Grafton [16.2] and ICBG [22.7]); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.2346 at 24 mo). Grafton showed consistently higher physical function scores at 24 months; however, differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.0823). Similar improvements in the physical component summary scores were seen in both the Grafton and ICBG groups. There was a statistically significant greater mean intraoperative blood loss in the ICBG group than in the Grafton group (P < 0.0031).
CONCLUSION: At 2-year follow-up, subjects who were randomized to Grafton Matrix and local bone achieved an 86% overall fusion rate and improvements in clinical outcomes that were comparable with those in the ICBG group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22076647     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823ed817

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


  33 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Autologous bone graft harvesting: a review of grafts and surgical techniques.

Authors:  A M Jakoi; J A Iorio; P J Cahill
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2015-04-07

3.  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

4.  Human mesenchymal stem cells and biomaterials interaction: a promising synergy to improve spine fusion.

Authors:  G Barbanti Brodano; E Mazzoni; M Tognon; C Griffoni; M Manfrini
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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 6.  An evaluation of biomaterials and osteobiologics for arthrodesis achievement in spine surgery.

Authors:  Joon S Yoo; Junyoung Ahn; Dillon S Patel; Nadia M Hrynewycz; Thomas S Brundage; Kern Singh
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

Review 7.  Growth factors in orthopaedic surgery: demineralized bone matrix versus recombinant bone morphogenetic proteins.

Authors:  Maurice Hinsenkamp; Jean-Francois Collard
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Bone graft materials for posterolateral fusion made simple: a systematic review.

Authors:  Matthew T Morris; Sandip P Tarpada; Woojin Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of osteoconductive and osteoinductive bone graft substitutes.

Authors:  Mark Kurd; Sarah Cohick; Andrew Park; Kasra Ahmadinia; Joseph Lee; Howard An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Effect of zoledronic acid on lumbar spinal fusion in osteoporotic patients.

Authors:  Qirui Ding; Jian Chen; Jin Fan; Qingqing Li; Guoyong Yin; Lipeng Yu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.