Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Jun;5(Suppl 1):S11-S18.
doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.15.

Orthobiologics in minimally invasive lumbar fusion

Allison C Greene  1   2 , Wellington K Hsu  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Orthobiologics in minimally invasive lumbar fusion

Allison C Greene et al. J Spine Surg. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Minimally invasive (MI) spine surgery continues to gain popularity with patients and surgeons for its potential to decrease operative time and avoid complications commonly associated with open surgery. In the face of a changing surgical landscape, selecting the appropriate implant material to be used in MI lumbar fusion procedures will remain critically important. Various orthobiologic materials are available for use, including autologous and allogeneic bone graft, bone marrow aspirate (BMA), demineralized bone matrix (DBM), ceramics, and growth factors. The purpose of this review is to summarize the use and efficacy of currently available products, as well as highlight the development of novel therapeutic options.

Keywords: Minimally invasive (MI); bone graft; peptide amphiphile (PA); rhBMP-2; spinal fusion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: WK Hsu has received research grant from Wright Medical and IP royalties from Stryker; advisory board for the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery; consulted for Stryker, Medtronic, Mirus, Allosource, Biovenus, Micromedicine, and Agnovos. AC Greene has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Photograph of self-supporting BMP-2 binding PA gel (bottom panel) and non-binding PA gel (top panel). The image is reprinted with permission.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Representative rat spine reconstruction (obtained from uCT) is shown for successfully fused specimen. White arrows indicate fusion mass. The image is reprinted with permission.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, et al. Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 2015;77:847-74; discussion 874. 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ge DH, Stekas ND, Varlotta CG, et al. Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:E555-60. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002903 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vora D, Kinnard M, Falk D, et al. A comparison of narcotic usage and length of post-operative hospital stay in open versus minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws. J Spine Surg 2018;4:516-21. 10.21037/jss.2018.08.04 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Huang TJ, Kim KT, Nakamura H, et al. The State of the Art in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:6194016. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Regev GJ, Kim CW, Salame K, et al. A Comparison of Different Minimally Invasive and Open Posterior Spinal Procedures Using Volumetric Measurements of the Surgical Exposures. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:425-8. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000390 - DOI - PubMed