Literature DB >> 7606120

Prospective comparison of autograft vs. allograft for adult posterolateral lumbar spine fusion: differences among freeze-dried, frozen, and mixed grafts.

H S An1, K Lynch, J Toth.   

Abstract

The use of allografts continues today for the purpose of spinal fusion. The literature is conflicting on the effectiveness of allografts in spinal fusion as compared with autografts. Numerous variables affect fusion, including age, sex, smoking status, type of surgery, and anterior versus posterior surgery. Therefore, we have undertaken a prospective study in which comparison was made between allograft and autograft in the same individual. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare autografts, frozen allografts, freeze-dried allografts, and a mixture of allograft and autograft in the same patient undergoing an instrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. Twenty patients (nine men and 11 women with ages ranging from 29-72 years and a mean age of 43.5 years) underwent posterolateral fusions of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw instrumentation. An autogenous posterior iliac crest bone graft was placed on one side in each patient and an allograft on the other side. Assessing bone fusion quality from grades 1 to 4, the autograft side had a grade 1 solid fusion in 16 of 20 cases (80%). On the other hand, freeze-dried grafting resulted in grade 4 resorption in all seven cases. Frozen allografts resorbed in three of five cases, and partial fusions were achieved in the remaining cases. When a mixture of autograft and freeze-dried allograft was used, grade 1 solid fusion was achieved in four of eight cases and partial fusions were achieved in the others. Bone densitometry results also showed that autograft sites gave significantly greater bone density, followed by mixture, frozen allografts, and freeze-dried allografts in this order.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7606120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord        ISSN: 0895-0385


  28 in total

1.  Healing properties of allograft from alendronate-treated animal in lumbar spine interbody cage fusion.

Authors:  Qingyun Xue; Haisheng Li; Xuenong Zou; Mathias Bünger; Niels Egund; Martin Lind; Finn Bjarke Christensen; Cody Bünger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-07-10       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  [Bone substitutes in scoliosis surgery].

Authors:  T Lerner; H Griefingholt; U Liljenqvist
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  An update on bone substitutes for spinal fusion.

Authors:  Masashi Miyazaki; Hiroshi Tsumura; Jeffrey C Wang; Ahmet Alanay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Far-red fluorescence gene reporter tomography for determination of placement and viability of cell-based gene therapies.

Authors:  Yujie Lu; Chinmay D Darne; I-Chih Tan; Banghe Zhu; Mary A Hall; Zawaunyka W Lazard; Alan R Davis; Lashan Simpson; Eva M Sevick-Muraca; Elizabeth A Olmsted-Davis
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  OPF/PMMA cage system as an alternative approach for the treatment of vertebral corpectomy.

Authors:  Asghar Rezaei; Hugo Giambini; Alan L Miller; Xifeng Liu; Benjamin D Elder; Michael J Yaszemski; Lichun Lu
Journal:  Appl Sci (Basel)       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 2.679

6.  The efficacy of rhBMP-2 versus autograft for posterolateral lumbar spine fusion in elderly patients.

Authors:  Kwang-Bok Lee; Cyrus E Taghavi; Margaret S Hsu; Kyung-Jin Song; Jeong Hyun Yoo; Gun Keorochana; Stephanie S Ngo; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Large volume inside the cage leading incomplete interbody bone fusion and residual back pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Mikinobu Takeuchi; Mitsuhiro Kamiya; Norimitsu Wakao; Atsuhiko Hirasawa; Katsuhisa Kawanami; Koji Osuka; Masakazu Takayasu
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 3.042

8.  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

Review 9.  A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures.

Authors:  Charla R Fischer; Ryan Cassilly; Winifred Cantor; Emmanuel Edusei; Qusai Hammouri; Thomas Errico
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Impact of instrumentation in lumbar spinal fusion in elderly patients: 71 patients followed for 2-7 years.

Authors:  Thomas Andersen; Finn B Christensen; Bent Niedermann; Peter Helmig; Kristian Høy; Ebbe S Hansen; Cody Bünger
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.