BACKGROUND: Several fusion adjuncts exist to enhance fusion rates during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). The objective of this study was to compare fusion rates in patients undergoing MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or cellularized bone matrix (CBM). METHODS: We conducted a single surgeon retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or CBM placed in an interbody cage. Single and multilevel procedures were included. Fusion was assessed on computed tomography scans at 12-month follow-up by an independent, blinded, board-certified neuroradiologist. Fusion rates and rate of revision surgery were compared with a Fisher exact test between the 2 groups. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify patient factors that were predictive of radiographic nonunion after MI-TLIF. RESULTS: A total of 93 fusion levels in 78 patients were reviewed. Thirty-nine patients received CBM, and 39 patients received rhBMP-2. The patients receiving rhBMP-2 were older on average (61.4 vs 55.6, P = .03). The overall fusion rate was 68% in the CBM group (32/47 levels) and 78% in the rhBMP-2 group (36/46) (P = .35). Only preoperative hypertension was predictive of radiographic nonunion (odds ratio = 3.5, P = .05). There were 3 smokers in the CBM group and 4 smokers in the BMP group, and 1 in each group experienced radiographic pseudarthrosis. A total of 4 patients, 3 in the CBM group and 1 in the BMP group (P = .61), required revision for symptomatic pseudarthrosis. All of these patients had a single-level index procedure. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in radiographic fusion and rate of revision surgery in patients who underwent MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or CBM as fusion adjuncts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both rhBMP-2 and CBMs can be used as effective fusion adjuncts without any clear advantage of one over the other.
BACKGROUND: Several fusion adjuncts exist to enhance fusion rates during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). The objective of this study was to compare fusion rates in patients undergoing MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or cellularized bone matrix (CBM). METHODS: We conducted a single surgeon retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or CBM placed in an interbody cage. Single and multilevel procedures were included. Fusion was assessed on computed tomography scans at 12-month follow-up by an independent, blinded, board-certified neuroradiologist. Fusion rates and rate of revision surgery were compared with a Fisher exact test between the 2 groups. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify patient factors that were predictive of radiographic nonunion after MI-TLIF. RESULTS: A total of 93 fusion levels in 78 patients were reviewed. Thirty-nine patients received CBM, and 39 patients received rhBMP-2. The patients receiving rhBMP-2 were older on average (61.4 vs 55.6, P = .03). The overall fusion rate was 68% in the CBM group (32/47 levels) and 78% in the rhBMP-2 group (36/46) (P = .35). Only preoperative hypertension was predictive of radiographic nonunion (odds ratio = 3.5, P = .05). There were 3 smokers in the CBM group and 4 smokers in the BMP group, and 1 in each group experienced radiographic pseudarthrosis. A total of 4 patients, 3 in the CBM group and 1 in the BMP group (P = .61), required revision for symptomatic pseudarthrosis. All of these patients had a single-level index procedure. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in radiographic fusion and rate of revision surgery in patients who underwent MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or CBM as fusion adjuncts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both rhBMP-2 and CBMs can be used as effective fusion adjuncts without any clear advantage of one over the other.
Entities:
Keywords:
TLIF; bone morphogenetic protein; cellularized bone matrix; lumbar spine fusion; minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; rhBMP-2; stem cells
Authors: E Kon; A Muraglia; A Corsi; P Bianco; M Marcacci; I Martin; A Boyde; I Ruspantini; P Chistolini; M Rocca; R Giardino; R Cancedda; R Quarto Journal: J Biomed Mater Res Date: 2000-03-05
Authors: Yongjung J Kim; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Seungchul Rhim; Gene Cheh Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Gordon Li; Chirag G Patil; Shivanand P Lad; Chris Ho; Wendy Tian; Maxwell Boakye Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468