ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 1 مورد

Clinical outcomes of bone graft categories as an extender in posterior lateral spine fusion

Clinical outcomes of bone graft categories as an extender in posterior lateral spine fusion
Category Fusion rate
Autograft 40 to 100%[1]
Bone marrow aspirate (BMA) mixed with:
  • Local bone
 92 to 100%[1]
  • Synthetics
 77 to 95%[1]
  • Allograft
 80%[1]
  • Demineralized bone matrices (DBMs)
 70%[1]
Allograft
  • Standalone
 40%[1]
  • As extender to autograft
 79%[1-3]
Demineralized bone matrix (DBM)
  • As extender to autograft
 81%[1]
Cell-based matrix (CBM)
  • As extender to autograft
 91%[4]
Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)
  • As extender to autograft
 79 to 88%[1,5]
Peptides
  • As extender to autograft (noninstrumented)
 50%[6]
Synthetic calcium phosphate
  • As extender to autograft
 85 to 92%[7]
Synthetic hydroxyapatite (HA)
  • As extender to autograft
 58 to 100%[7]
Synthetic beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP)
  • As extender to autograft
 57 to 100%[7]
Synthetic biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP)
  • As extender to autograft
 94%[7]
Synthetic silicated calcium phosphate
  • As extender to autograft
 71[8] to 100%[9]
Synthetic bioglass
  • As extender to autograft
 82 to 98%[10]
Synthetic microporous BCP
  • As standalone
 55%[11]
References:
  1. Morris MT, Tarpada SP, Cho W. Bone graft materials for posterolateral fusion made simple: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2018; 27:1856.
  2. An HS, Lynch K, Toth J. Prospective comparison of autograft vs. allograft for adult posterolateral lumbar spine fusion: differences among freeze-dried, frozen, and mixed grafts. J Spinal Disord 1995; 8:131.
  3. Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, et al. Allograft Versus Demineralized Bone Matrix in Instrumented and Noninstrumented Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review. Global Spine J 2018; 8:396.
  4. Musante DB, Firtha ME, Atkinson BL, et al. Clinical evaluation of an allogeneic bone matrix containing viable osteogenic cells in patients undergoing one- and two-level posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis with decompressive laminectomy. J Orthop Surg Res 2016; 11:63.
  5. Lytle EJ, Lawless MH, Paik G, et al. The minimally effective dose of bone morphogenetic protein in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2020; 20:1286.
  6. Jacobsen MK, Andresen AK, Jespersen AB, et al. Randomized double blind clinical trial of ABM/P-15 versus allograft in noninstrumented lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J 2020; 20:677.
  7. Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, et al. Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 25:509.
  8. Coughlan M, Davies M, Mostert AK, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter study comparing silicated calcium phosphate versus BMP-2 synthetic bone graft in posterolateral instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disorders. Spine 2018; 43:E860.
  9. Licina P, Coughlan M, Johnston E, Pearcy M. Comparison of Silicate-Substituted Calcium Phosphate (Actifuse) with Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (Infuse) in Posterolateral Instrumented Lumbar Fusion. Global Spine J 2015; 5:471.
  10. Cottrill E, Pennington Z, Lankipalle N, et al. The effect of bioactive glasses on spinal fusion: A cross-disciplinary systematic review and meta-analysis of the preclinical and clinical data. J Clin Neurosci 2020; 78:34.
  11. Lehr AM, Oner FC, Delawi D, et al. Efficacy of a Standalone Microporous Ceramic Versus Autograft in Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion: A Multicenter, Randomized, Intrapatient Controlled, Noninferiority Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2020; 45:944.
Graphic 134667 Version 1.0