The impact of demineralized bone matrix characteristics on pseudarthrosis and surgical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar decompression and fusion

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.

[1]  C. Kepler,et al.  Trends in Single-Level Lumbar Fusions over the Past Decade Using a National Database. , 2022, World neurosurgery.

[2]  A. Carter,et al.  Demineralized Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery: A Review of Current Applications and Future Trends. , 2021, International journal of spine surgery.

[3]  D. Chang,et al.  Surgical outcomes of two kinds of demineralized bone matrix putties/local autograft composites in instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion , 2021, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[4]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Examination of the Role of Cells in Commercially Available Cellular Allografts in Spine Fusion: An in Vivo Animal Study. , 2020, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  M. Fini,et al.  Spinal fusion procedures in the adult and young population: a systematic review on allogenic bone and synthetic grafts when compared to autologous bone , 2020, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine.

[6]  L. Kanim,et al.  Comparative Efficacy of Commonly Available Human Bone Graft Substitutes as Tested for Posterolateral Fusion in an Athymic Rat Model , 2019, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[7]  Sue Lynn Myhre,et al.  Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[8]  Meng-Ling Lu,et al.  The fusion rate of demineralized bone matrix compared with autogenous iliac bone graft for long multi-segment posterolateral spinal fusion , 2016, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[9]  Tien-Min G. Chu,et al.  Evolution of Bone Grafting: Bone Grafts and Tissue Engineering Strategies for Vascularized Bone Regeneration , 2015, Clinical Reviews in Bone and Mineral Metabolism.

[10]  F. Baumann,et al.  Posterolateral fusion in acute traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: a comparison of demineralized bone matrix and autologous bone graft. , 2015, Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca.

[11]  B. Chang,et al.  The Effect of Poloxamer 407-Based Hydrogel on the Osteoinductivity of Demineralized Bone Matrix , 2014, Clinics in orthopedic surgery.

[12]  J. Grauer,et al.  Short-Term Adverse Events, Length of Stay, and Readmission After Iliac Crest Bone Graft for Spinal Fusion , 2014, Spine.

[13]  A. Gotfryd,et al.  Reliability analysis of radiographic methods for determination of posterolateral lumbossacral fusion , 2014, Einstein.

[14]  G. Logroscino,et al.  Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice , 2014, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine.

[15]  P. Touzopoulos,et al.  Use of demineralized bone matrix in spinal fusion. , 2014, World journal of orthopedics.

[16]  Ji-Ho Lee,et al.  A comparison of dynamic views using plain radiographs and thin-section three-dimensional computed tomography in the evaluation of fusion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  James D. Kang,et al.  Grafton and Local Bone Have Comparable Outcomes to Iliac Crest Bone in Instrumented Single-Level Lumbar Fusions , 2012, Spine.

[18]  A. Ozer,et al.  Clinical outcomes of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis treated with lumbar decompression and the Cosmic “semi-rigid” posterior system , 2010, SAS Journal.

[19]  Timothy Ganey,et al.  Demineralized Bone Matrix for Fracture Healing: Fact or Fiction? , 2010, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[20]  Constantin Schizas,et al.  Posterolateral lumbar spine fusion using a novel demineralized bone matrix: a controlled case pilot study , 2008, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[21]  J. Block,et al.  Demineralized bone matrix composite grafting for posterolateral spinal fusion. , 2007, Orthopedics.

[22]  R. Vaidya,et al.  Complications of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 , 2007, European Spine Journal.

[23]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  Bone grafting alternatives in spinal surgery. , 2002, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[24]  L. Titus,et al.  New formulations of demineralized bone matrix as a more effective graft alternative in experimental posterolateral lumbar spine arthrodesis. , 1999, Spine.

[25]  D. Siambanes,et al.  Comparison of plain radiographs and CT scans in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. , 1998, Orthopedics.

[26]  S. Boden,et al.  Experimental Posterolateral Lumbar Spinal Fusion With a Demineralized Bone Matrix Gel , 1998, Spine.

[27]  W. Enneking,et al.  Immunologic Responses in Human Recipients of Osseous and Osteochondral Allografts , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[28]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[29]  Rafael A. Vega,et al.  Evaluation of glycerol-preserved bone allografts in cervical spine fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[30]  Jeff C. Wang Osteoinductivity of Commercially Available Demineralized Bone Matrix , 2004 .