Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review.

The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of synthetic bone graft substitutes versus autograft or allograft for the treatment of lumbar and cervical spinal degenerative diseases. Multiple major medical reference databases were searched for studies that evaluated spinal fusion using synthetic bone graft substitutes (either alone or with an autograft or allograft) compared with autograft and allograft. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with more than 10 patients were included. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. The search yielded 214 citations with 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. For the patients with lumbar spinal degenerative disease, data from 19 comparative studies were included: 3 RCTs, 12 prospective, and 4 retrospective studies. Hydroxyapatite (HA), HA+collagen, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), calcium sulfate, or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) were used. Overall, there were no differences between the treatment groups in terms of fusion, functional outcomes, or complications, except in 1 study that found higher rates of HA graft absorption. For the patients with cervical degenerative conditions, data from 8 comparative studies were included: 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies (1 prospective and 3 retrospective studies). Synthetic grafts included HA, β-TCP/HA, PMMA, and biocompatible osteoconductive polymer (BOP). The PMMA and BOP grafts led to lower fusion rates, and PMMA, HA, and BOP had greater risks of graft fragmentation, settling, and instrumentation problems compared with iliac crest bone graft. The overall quality of evidence evaluating the potential use and superiority of the synthetic biological materials for lumbar and cervical fusion in this systematic review was low or insufficient, largely due to the high potential for bias and small sample sizes. Thus, definitive conclusions or recommendations regarding the use of these synthetic materials should be made cautiously and within the context of the limitations of the evidence.

[1]  N McKoy,et al.  Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. , 2002, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[2]  L. Dai,et al.  Single-Level Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion of Lumbar Spine With &bgr;-Tricalcium Phosphate Versus Autograft: A Prospective, Randomized Study With 3-Year Follow-up , 2008, Spine.

[3]  B. Chang,et al.  A prospective consecutive study of instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion using synthetic hydroxyapatite (Bongros-HA) as a bone graft extender. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[4]  C. Niu,et al.  The Fusion Rate of Calcium Sulfate With Local Autograft Bone Compared With Autologous Iliac Bone Graft for Instrumented Short-Segment Spinal Fusion , 2005, Spine.

[5]  M. Fehlings,et al.  Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Methodological Approaches to Evaluate the Literature and Establish Best Evidence , 2013, Spine.

[6]  H. Varma,et al.  Hydroxyapatite-Bioactive Glass Ceramic Composite as Stand-alone Graft Substitute for Posterolateral Fusion of Lumbar Spine: A Prospective, Matched, and Controlled Study , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[7]  M. Grevitt,et al.  A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Coralline Hydroxyapatite With Autograft in Cervical Interbody Fusion , 2003, Spine.

[8]  D. Cho,et al.  Cage containing a biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic (Triosite) for the treatment of cervical spondylosis. , 2005, Surgical neurology.

[9]  Matthew Shaw,et al.  Healos and Bone Marrow Aspirate Used for Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Case Controlled Study Comparing Healos With Autograft , 2006, Spine.

[10]  S. Roh,et al.  A prospective comparative study of radiological outcomes after instrumented posterolateral fusion mass using autologous local bone or a mixture of beta-tcp and autologous local bone in the same patient , 2013, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[11]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  T. Albert,et al.  Healos graft carrier with bone marrow aspirate instead of allograft as adjunct to local autograft for posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a minimum 2-year follow-up study. , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  D. Alexander,et al.  Efficacy of calcium sulfate plus decompression bone in lumbar and lumbosacral spinal fusion: preliminary results in 40 patients. , 2001, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[14]  Luis Moro-Barrero,et al.  Radiographic Analysis of Fusion Mass Using Fresh Autologous Bone Marrow With Ceramic Composites as an Alternative to Autologous Bone Graft , 2007, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[16]  Howard Balshem,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  Douglas K Owens,et al.  AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  S. Savolainen,et al.  Iliac crest versus artificial bone grafts in 250 cervical fusions , 2005, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[19]  J. Krauss,et al.  Comparative evaluation of microdiscectomy only, autograft fusion, polymethylmethacrylate interposition, and threaded titanium cage fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: a prospective randomized study in 125 patients. , 2002, Neurosurgical focus.

[20]  H. Crockard,et al.  Biocompatible Osteoconductive Polymer Versus Iliac Graft: A Prospective Comparative Study for the Evaluation of Fusion Pattern After Anterior Cervical Discectomy , 1996, Spine.

[21]  Vera Sathira-Angkura,et al.  A comparative study of radiographic results using HEALOS collagen-hydroxyapatite sponge with bone marrow aspiration versus local bone graft in the same patients undergoing posterolateral lumbar fusion. , 2013, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[22]  Chiung-Chyi Shen,et al.  Preliminary comparison of radiolucent cages containing either autogenous cancellous bone or hydroxyapatite graft in multilevel cervical fusion , 2009, Journal of clinical neuroscience.

[23]  M. Mishina,et al.  Radiological study of the sandwich method in cervical anterior fusion using autologous vertebral bone grafts , 2010, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[24]  B. Kwon,et al.  Carrier materials for spinal fusion. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[25]  M. Takayasu,et al.  Comparative evaluation of bone–filled Polymethylmethacrylate implant, autograft fusion, and Polyetheretherketone cervical cage fusion for the treatment of single –level cervical disc disease. , 2010, Asian journal of neurosurgery.

[26]  Chien-Jen Hsu,et al.  Coralline hydroxyapatite and laminectomy-derived bone as adjuvant graft material for lumbar posterolateral fusion. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[27]  S. Kitchel.  A preliminary comparative study of radiographic results using mineralized collagen and bone marrow aspirate versus autologous bone in the same patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[28]  T. Yoshii,et al.  Hybrid Grafting Using Bone Marrow Aspirate Combined With Porous &bgr;-Tricalcium Phosphate and Trephine Bone for Lumbar Posterolateral Spinal Fusion: A Prospective, Comparative Study Versus Local Bone Grafting , 2012, Spine.

[29]  C. Niu,et al.  A Comparison of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion Comparing Autograft, Autogenous Laminectomy Bone With Bone Marrow Aspirate, and Calcium Sulphate With Bone Marrow Aspirate: A Prospective Randomized Study , 2009, Spine.

[30]  H. Hsu,et al.  Local autogenous bone mixed with bone expander: an optimal option of bone graft in single-segment posterolateral lumbar fusion. , 2008, Surgical neurology.

[31]  P. Korovessis,et al.  Correlative radiological, self-assessment and clinical analysis of evolution in instrumented dorsal and lateral fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease. Autograft versus coralline hydroxyapatite , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[32]  B. Chang,et al.  The First Clinical Trial of Beta-Calcium Pyrophosphate as a Novel Bone Graft Extender in Instrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion , 2011, Clinics in orthopedic surgery.

[33]  Hyoungmin Kim,et al.  The efficacy of porous hydroxyapatite bone chip as an extender of local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[34]  Zi-qiang Chen,et al.  Comparison between two pedicle screw augmentation instrumentations in adult degenerative scoliosis with osteoporosis , 2011, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[35]  Marc F Swiontkowski,et al.  Introducing levels of evidence to the journal , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.