Literature DB >> 32455520

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

Sanghyun Han1, Bumsoo Park1, Jeong-Wook Lim1, Jin-Young Youm1, Seoung-Won Choi1, Dae Hwan Kim2, Dong Ki Ahn3.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autografts; Bone demineralization technique; Lumbar vertebrae; Meta-analysis; Spinal fusion

Year:  2020        PMID: 32455520     DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2019.0185

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc        ISSN: 1225-8245


  5 in total

Review 1.  Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review.

Authors:  Yidan Zhang; Yu Jiang; Da Zou; Baozhi Yuan; Hua Zhu Ke; Weishi Li
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Ceramic bone graft substitute vs autograft in XLIF: a prospective randomized single-center evaluation of radiographic and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Cristiano Magalhães Menezes; Gabriel Carvalho Lacerda; Germano Senna Oliveira do Valle; André de Oliveira Arruda; Erica Godinho Menezes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 2.721

3.  Engineering Multifunctional Hydrogel With Osteogenic Capacity for Critical-Size Segmental Bone Defect Repair.

Authors:  Shaowei Zheng; Haobo Zhong; Hao Cheng; Xu Li; Guowei Zeng; Tianyu Chen; Yucong Zou; Weile Liu; Chunhan Sun
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-05-09

Review 4.  Novel Approaches Guiding the Future of Spinal Biologics for Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Eileen N Phan; Wellington K Hsu
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2022-04-18

5.  Safety and Tolerability of Stromal Vascular Fraction Combined with β-Tricalcium Phosphate in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Phase I Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Un Yong Choi; Kyoung-Tae Kim; Kwang Gi Kim; Sang Heon Lim; Young Jae Kim; Seil Sohn; Seung Hun Sheen; Chan Yeong Heo; Inbo Han
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 6.600

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.