Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 and Bone Marrow Aspirate With Allograft as Alternatives to Autograft in Instrumented Revision Posterolateral Lumbar Spinal Fusion A Minimum Two-Year Follow-up Study

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, UCLA Comprehensive Spine Center, 1250 16th St., Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.3). 02/2010; 35(11):1144-50. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bb5203
Source: PubMed


Retrospective cohort study.
Compare the efficacy of rhBMP-2 and bone marrow aspirate with allograft (BMAA) as alternatives to autograft in instrumented revision posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).
The use of autogenous bone graft is the current gold standard in revision PLF; however, this practice is associated with significant donor-site morbidity. Revision PLF pose the additional challenges of a less than ideal fusion environment and a limited quantity of autogenous bone graft. rhBMP-2 and BMAA have been shown to be acceptable bone graft substitutes in several primary orthopedic procedures. The role of these bone graft substitutes in instrumented revision PLF has yet to be determined.
Sixty-two patients (125 levels) who underwent instrumented revision PLF with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Group 1 contained 24 patients (13 single- [group 1A] and 11 multilevel [group 1B]) who underwent instrumented revision PLF using rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge. Group 2 included 18 patients (7 single- [group 2A] and 11 multilevel [group 2B]) with procedures using BMAA. Group 3 consisted of 20 patients (10 single- [group 3A] and 10 multilevel [group 3B]) with procedures using autograft. Demographic, surgical, and clinical data were collected from medical records. Time to solid fusion mass formation, fusion rate, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. The progression of the fusion mass was evaluated by reviewing radiographs. A diagnosis of nonunion was based on exploration during an additional revision surgery or evidence of nonunion on dynamic radiographs or computerized tomography. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) before surgery and at 6-week, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups.
Overall fusion rate was 93.5% (58/62). All single-level revision PLF achieved solid fusion. Groups 1B and 3B achieved 100% fusion, (11/11) and (10/10), respectively;whereas group 2B had a fusion rate of 63.6% (7/11). Group 1 also developed a solid fusion mass earlier than the other groups. There was a significant decrease between preoperative and 2-year postoperative VAS scores in all groups, but no significant difference among groups. Three patients in group 2 required an additional revision surgery.
rhBMP-2 may be an appropriate alternative to autogenous bone graft in both single- and multilevel revision PLF, whereas BMAA may be appropriate as a substitute in single-level revision PLF. The use of BMAA in single-level revisions may be a more cost-effective option than rhBMP-2.

4 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Not Available
    Ultrasonics Symposium, 2005 IEEE; 10/2005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spinal arthrodesis continues to expand in clinical indications and surgical practice. Despite a century of study, failure of bone formation or pseudarthrosis can occur in individual patients with debilitating clinical symptoms. Here we review biological and technical aspects of spinal fusion under active investigation, describe relevant biomechanics in health and disease, and identify the possibilities and limitations of translational animal models. The purpose of this article is to foster collaborative efforts with researchers who model bone hierarchy. The induction of heterotopic osteosynthesis requires a complex balance of biologic factors and operative technique to achieve successful fusion. Anatomical considerations of each spinal region including blood supply, osteology, and biomechanics predispose a fusion site to robust or insufficient bone formation. Careful preparation of the fusion site and appropriate selection of graft materials remains critical but is sometimes guided by conflicting evidence from the long-bone literature. Modern techniques of graft site preparation and instrumentation have evolved for every segment of the vertebral column. Despite validated biomechanical studies of modern instrumentation, a correlation with superior clinical outcomes is difficult to demonstrate. In many cases, adjuvant biologic therapies with allograft and synthetic cages have been used successfully to reproduce the enhancement of fusion rates observed with cancellous and tricortical autograft. Current areas of investigation comprise materials science, stem cell therapies, recombinant growth factors, scaffolds and biologic delivery systems, and minimally invasive surgical techniques to optimize the biologic response to intervention. Diverse animal models are required to approach the breadth of spinal pathology and novel therapeutics.
    Journal of Biomechanics 11/2010; 44(2):213-20. DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.021 · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Autologous iliac crest bone graft remains the gold standard for lumbar fusion. The potential for complications has led to the development of alternative bone graft materials and enhancers, including autologous growth factors, demineralized bone matrix products, osteoinductive agents, and ceramic products. The current literature centers mainly on preclinical studies, which, further complicating the situation, evaluate these products in different clinical scenarios or surgical techniques. Autologous growth factors and demineralized bone matrix products have had promising results in preclinical studies, but few strong clinical studies have been conducted. Ceramic extenders were evaluated with other substances and had good but often inconsistent results. Bone morphogenetic proteins have been extensively studied and may have benefits as osteoinductive agents. Category comparisons are difficult to make, and there are differences even between products within the same category. The surgeon must be knowledgeable about products and their advantages, disadvantages, indications, contraindications, and possible applications so that they can make the best choice for each patient.
    American journal of orthopedics (Belle Mead, N.J.) 05/2012; 41(5):230-5.
Show more