Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cellular Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery - Are They Worth the Risk: A Systematic Review.
Lambrechts, Mark J; Issa, Tariq Z; Mazmudar, Aditya; Lee, Yunsoo; Toci, Gregory R; D'Antonio, Nicholas D; Schilken, Meghan; Lingenfelter, Kenneth; Kepler, Christopher K; Schroeder, Gregory D; Vaccaro, Alexander R.
Affiliation
  • Lambrechts MJ; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Issa TZ; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Mazmudar A; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Lee Y; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Toci GR; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • D'Antonio ND; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Schilken M; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Lingenfelter K; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, ChristianaCare, Wilmington, DE, USA.
  • Kepler CK; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Schroeder GD; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Vaccaro AR; Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Global Spine J ; 14(3): 1070-1081, 2024 Apr.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37773001
ABSTRACT
STUDY

DESIGN:

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE:

To review the literature for complications and outcomes after the implantation of cellular bone matrix (CBM) during spine fusion.

METHODS:

The PubMed database was queried from inception to January 31, 2023 for any articles that discussed the role of and identified a specific CBM in spinal fusion procedures. Adverse events, reoperations, methods, and fusion rates were collected from all studies and reported.

RESULTS:

Six hundred articles were identified, of which 19 were included that reported outcomes of 7 different CBM products. Seven studies evaluated lumbar fusion, 11 evaluated cervical fusion, and 1 study reported adverse events of a single CBM product. Only 4 studies were comparative studies while others were limited to case series. Fusion rates ranged from 68% to 98.7% in the lumbar spine and 87% to 100% in the cervical spine, although criteria for radiographic fusion was variable. While 7 studies reported no adverse events, there was no strict consensus on what constituted a complication. One study reported catastrophic disseminated tuberculosis from donor contaminated CBM. The authors of 14 studies had conflicts of interest with either the manufacturer or distributor for their analyzed CBM.

CONCLUSIONS:

Current evidence regarding the use of cellular bone matrix as an osteobiologic during spine surgery is weak and limited to low-grade non-comparative studies subject to industry funding. While reported fusion rates are high, the risk of severe complications should not be overlooked. Further large clinical trials are required to elucidate whether the CBMs offer any benefits that outweigh the risks.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Language: En Journal: Global Spine J Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Language: En Journal: Global Spine J Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States