Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Han S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7671781 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Han Sanghyun S Park Bumsoo B Lim Jeong-Wook JW Youm Jin-Young JY Choi Seoung-Won SW Kim Dae Hwan DH Ahn Dong Ki DK

Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 20200527 6

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 nonra ...[more]

PMID: 32455520

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patients with marked osteoporosis and/or obesity/morbid obesity and severe multilevel lumbar stenosis and other pathology often undergo multilevel laminectomies with non instrumented posterolateral fusions (PLF). The other pathology may include combinations of degenerative spondylolisthesis/lysis, foraminal/far lateral discs, and/or synovial cysts requiring more extensive facet resections. Presently, spine surgeons often use bone graft expanders to supplement the lamina autograft harvested in the course of laminectomy/decompressions for the PLF mass.In 59 patients, we prospectively analyzed the fusion rates following multilevel laminectomies/noninstrumented fusions using lamina autograft and the bone graft expander Nanoss (RTI Surgical Alachua, FL, and USA) with autogenous bone marrow aspirate (BMA). Patients averaged 66.1 years of age; many exhibited marked osteoporosis (48 patients) and obesity (13 of 27 morbidly obese). Magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomography (CT) studies documented stenosis/ossified yellow ligament (OYL) and degenerative spondylolisthesis (51 patients)/lysis (2 patients), synovial cysts (32 patients), and disc herniations (10 of 21 far lateral). Patients were followed remove up for an average of 3.12 years.Average 4.0 level laminectomies/1.2 level noninstrumented fusions utilized lamina autograft and Nanoss/BMA. Both X-ray/CT studies performed an average of 4.9 months postoperatively documented a 97% fusion rate (57 of 59 patients). Two patients with severe osteoporosis, morbid obesity, and smoking histories exhibited pseudarthroses; neither was sufficiently symptomatic to require secondary surgery.Fifty-nine patients with multilevel lumbar stenosis/OYL and other pathology underwent multilevel lumbar laminectomies/noninstrumented fusions using lamina autograft and Nanoss/BMA. Both dynamic X-ray/CT studies confirmed a 97% fusion rate an average of 4.9 months postoperatively. Nanoss/BMA contributed to a high posterolateral lumbar non instrumented fusion rate without complciations.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.ResultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .

Project description:BackgroundThe previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures.MethodsProspective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database (the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term). The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.ResultsTwenty-four studies (n = 1967 patients) were included in this review (n = 951, open-TLIF, n = 1016, MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score (VAS)-back pain score (WMD = -0.44; P = 0.001), Oswestry Disabilities Index (WMD = -1.57; P = 0.005), early ambulation (WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD = -265.59; P < 0.00001), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.89; P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate (RR = 0.99; P = 0.34), VAS-leg pain (WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26), complication rate (RR = 0.84; P = 0.35), operation time (WMD = -5.23; P = 0.82), or reoperation rate (RR = 0.73; P = 0.32).ConclusionsMIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets