Ki-Eun Chang1, Mohamed Kamal Mesregah1,2, Zoe Fresquez1, Eloise W Stanton1, Zorica Buser3, Jeffrey C Wang1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo St., HC4, Suite 5400A, Los Angeles, CA, 90003, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Shibin el Kom, Egypt. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo St., HC4, Suite 5400A, Los Angeles, CA, 90003, USA. zorica.buser@gerlinginstitute.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the current review is to summarize the current evidence on graft materials used in fusion procedures for spinal deformity corrections. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant published observational studies and clinical trials using osteobiologics and biomaterials in spinal deformity surgery. RESULTS: The use of autograft in deformity correction surgeries has been reported in a limited number of studies, with the harvest sites including iliac crest, ribs, and local bone. Various allografts and biologics have been used in the treatment of spinal deformities including idiopathic and degenerative scoliosis, either as stand alone or in combination with autograft. Limited number of studies reported no differences in fusion rates or outcomes. Use of rh-BMP2 in anterior, posterior or front/back approaches showed higher fusion rates than other graft materials in patients with spinal deformities. Due to the limited number of quality studies included in the review, as well as alternative factors, such as costs, availability, and surgeon expertise/preference, no definitive conclusion or recommendations can be made as to the ideal graft choice in spinal deformity surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Most commonly used grafts included autograft, allograft and rh-BMP2, with new biologics and biomaterials constantly emerging in the market. Limited number of high-quality comparative studies and heterogeneity in study design prevented direct comparisons that can lead to meaningful recommendations. Further studies are needed to prove superiority of any single graft material and/or biologic that is also cost-effective and safe.
PURPOSE: The aim of the current review is to summarize the current evidence on graft materials used in fusion procedures for spinal deformity corrections. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant published observational studies and clinical trials using osteobiologics and biomaterials in spinal deformity surgery. RESULTS: The use of autograft in deformity correction surgeries has been reported in a limited number of studies, with the harvest sites including iliac crest, ribs, and local bone. Various allografts and biologics have been used in the treatment of spinal deformities including idiopathic and degenerative scoliosis, either as stand alone or in combination with autograft. Limited number of studies reported no differences in fusion rates or outcomes. Use of rh-BMP2 in anterior, posterior or front/back approaches showed higher fusion rates than other graft materials in patients with spinal deformities. Due to the limited number of quality studies included in the review, as well as alternative factors, such as costs, availability, and surgeon expertise/preference, no definitive conclusion or recommendations can be made as to the ideal graft choice in spinal deformity surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Most commonly used grafts included autograft, allograft and rh-BMP2, with new biologics and biomaterials constantly emerging in the market. Limited number of high-quality comparative studies and heterogeneity in study design prevented direct comparisons that can lead to meaningful recommendations. Further studies are needed to prove superiority of any single graft material and/or biologic that is also cost-effective and safe.
Authors: Rozalia Dimitriou; George I Mataliotakis; Antonios G Angoules; Nikolaos K Kanakaris; Peter V Giannoudis Journal: Injury Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Ryan C Hofler; Kevin Swong; Brendan Martin; Michael Wemhoff; George Alexander Jones Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Marjorie C Wang; Leighton Chan; Dennis J Maiman; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Yongjung J Kim; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Anthony S Rinella; Charles Edwards; Charles Edward Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Rui M Duarte; Pedro Varanda; Rui L Reis; Ana Rita C Duarte; Jorge Correia-Pinto Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 6.389
Authors: V Campana; G Milano; E Pagano; M Barba; C Cicione; G Salonna; W Lattanzi; G Logroscino Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.896