The impact of demineralized bone matrix characteristics on pseudarthrosis and surgical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar decompression and fusion
- PMID: 37448499
- PMCID: PMC10336891
- DOI: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_45_23
The impact of demineralized bone matrix characteristics on pseudarthrosis and surgical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar decompression and fusion
Abstract
Objectives: The objectives of our study were to compare the fusion rates and surgical outcomes of lumbar fusion surgery based on the (1) type of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) carrier allograft, (2) the presence/absence of a carrier, and (3) the presence of bone fibers in DBM.
Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent single-level posterolateral decompression and fusion (PLDF) between L3 and L5 between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. We assessed bone grafts based on carrier type (no carrier, sodium hyaluronate carrier, and glycerol carrier) and the presence of bone fibers. Fusion status was determined based on a radiographic assessment of bony bridging, screw loosening, or change in segmental lordosis >5°. Analyses were performed to assess fusion rates and surgical outcomes.
Results: Fifty-four patients were given DBM with a hyaluronate carrier, 75 had a glycerol carrier, and 94 patients were given DBM without a carrier. DBM carrier type, bone fibers, and carrier presence had no impact on 90-day readmission rates (P = 0.195, P = 0.099, and P = 1.000, respectively) or surgical readmissions (P = 0.562, P = 0.248, and P = 0.640, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that type of carrier, presence of fibers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.106 [0.524-2.456], P = 0.797), and presence of a carrier (OR = 0.701 [0.370-1.327], P = 0.274) were also not significantly associated with successful fusion likelihood.
Conclusion: Our study found no significant differences between DBM containing glycerol, sodium hyaluronate, or no carrier regarding fusion rates or surgical outcomes after single-level PLDF. Bone particulates versus bone fibers also had no significant differences regarding the likelihood of bony fusion.
Keywords: Bone matrix; lumbar fusion; pseudarthrosis; surgical outcomes.
Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine.
Conflict of interest statement
There are no conflicts of interest.
Similar articles
-
In-vivo Performance of Seven Commercially Available Demineralized Bone Matrix Fiber and Putty Products in a Rat Posterolateral Fusion Model.Front Surg. 2020 Mar 20;7:10. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.00010. eCollection 2020. Front Surg. 2020. PMID: 32266283 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical and radiographic outcomes of concentrated bone marrow aspirate with allograft and demineralized bone matrix for posterolateral and interbody lumbar fusion in elderly patients.Eur Spine J. 2015 Nov;24(11):2567-72. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4117-5. Epub 2015 Jul 14. Eur Spine J. 2015. PMID: 26169879
-
Evaluation of a new formulation of demineralized bone matrix putty in a rabbit posterolateral spinal fusion model.Spine J. 2014 Sep 1;14(9):2155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.01.053. Epub 2014 Feb 8. Spine J. 2014. PMID: 24512696
-
Allograft Versus Demineralized Bone Matrix in Instrumented and Noninstrumented Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review.Global Spine J. 2018 Jun;8(4):396-412. doi: 10.1177/2192568217735342. Epub 2017 Oct 25. Global Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29977726 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Experimental posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with a demineralized bone matrix gel.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Jan 15;23(2):159-67. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199801150-00003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998. PMID: 9474720 Review.
Cited by
-
The Future of Bone Repair: Emerging Technologies and Biomaterials in Bone Regeneration.Int J Mol Sci. 2024 Nov 27;25(23):12766. doi: 10.3390/ijms252312766. Int J Mol Sci. 2024. PMID: 39684476 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, Meisel HJ, Myhre SL, Hashimoto R, et al. Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: A systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25:509–16. - PubMed
-
- Vaccaro AR, Chiba K, Heller JG, Patel TC, Thalgott JS, Truumees E, et al. Bone grafting alternatives in spinal surgery. Spine J. 2002;2:206–15. - PubMed
-
- Gruskay JA, Basques BA, Bohl DD, Webb ML, Grauer JN. Short-term adverse events, length of stay, and readmission after iliac crest bone graft for spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 197) 2014;39:1718–24. - PubMed
-
- Strong DM, Friedlaender GE, Tomford WW, Springfield DS, Shives TC, Burchardt H, et al. Immunologic responses in human recipients of osseous and osteochondral allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;326:107–14. - PubMed
-
- Griffin KS, Davis KM, McKinley TO, Anglen JO, Tien-Min C, Borckel J, et al. Evolution of bone grafting: bone grafts and tissue engineering strategies for vascularized bone regeneration. Clinic Rev Bone Miner Metab. 2015;13:232–44.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources