Randomized double blind clinical trial of ABM/P-15 versus allograft in noninstrumented lumbar fusion surgery.


Journal

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
ISSN: 1878-1632
Titre abrégé: Spine J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130732

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2020
Historique:
received: 04 12 2018
revised: 18 01 2020
accepted: 20 01 2020
pubmed: 1 2 2020
medline: 29 6 2021
entrez: 1 2 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Due to poor bone stock in the elderly, a noninstrumented fusion is commonly performed in Scandinavia when instability is present. Allograft bone is often used as graft extender with consequent low fusion rates. The use of 15 amino acid residue (ABM/P-15) has shown superior fusion rates in dental and cervical spinal surgery but no clinical studies have been conducted in noninstrumented lumbar fusion surgery. To evaluate patient reported outcomes (PROs) and the intertransverse fusion rate in noninstrumented posterolateral fusion with either ABM/P-15 or allograft. Double-blind randomized clinical trial. Patients 60 years or older with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing decompression and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion. Visual analog scales for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQoL-5D. One hundred one patients were enrolled in the study and randomized 1:1 to either ABM/P-15 (mixed 50/50, 5cc/level) or allograft bone (30 g/level), both mixed with local bone graft. PROs were collected at baseline and at 12 and 24 months after surgery. The patients underwent 1-year postoperative fine cut computed tomography-scans (0.9 mm) with reconstructions, independently evaluated by three reviewers. Fusion status was concluded by consensus of two of the three as "fusion" or "no fusion." There were 49 patients available for analysis in both cohorts. The two groups were similar in terms of sex distribution, age, and number of levels fused. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the ABM/P-15 group with 50% fused compared with 20% in the allograft group. PROs at baseline and at all follow-up time points were similar between the two groups. Patients undergoing noninstrumented posterolateral fusion augmented with ABM/P-15 had a statistically significantly higher fusion rate compared with allograft when evaluated with postoperative fine cut computed tomography-scans (0.9 mm) with reconstructions. However, this did not translate to better clinical outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Due to poor bone stock in the elderly, a noninstrumented fusion is commonly performed in Scandinavia when instability is present. Allograft bone is often used as graft extender with consequent low fusion rates. The use of 15 amino acid residue (ABM/P-15) has shown superior fusion rates in dental and cervical spinal surgery but no clinical studies have been conducted in noninstrumented lumbar fusion surgery.
PURPOSE
To evaluate patient reported outcomes (PROs) and the intertransverse fusion rate in noninstrumented posterolateral fusion with either ABM/P-15 or allograft.
STUDY DESIGN
Double-blind randomized clinical trial.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Patients 60 years or older with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing decompression and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Visual analog scales for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQoL-5D.
METHODS
One hundred one patients were enrolled in the study and randomized 1:1 to either ABM/P-15 (mixed 50/50, 5cc/level) or allograft bone (30 g/level), both mixed with local bone graft. PROs were collected at baseline and at 12 and 24 months after surgery. The patients underwent 1-year postoperative fine cut computed tomography-scans (0.9 mm) with reconstructions, independently evaluated by three reviewers. Fusion status was concluded by consensus of two of the three as "fusion" or "no fusion."
RESULTS
There were 49 patients available for analysis in both cohorts. The two groups were similar in terms of sex distribution, age, and number of levels fused. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the ABM/P-15 group with 50% fused compared with 20% in the allograft group. PROs at baseline and at all follow-up time points were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing noninstrumented posterolateral fusion augmented with ABM/P-15 had a statistically significantly higher fusion rate compared with allograft when evaluated with postoperative fine cut computed tomography-scans (0.9 mm) with reconstructions. However, this did not translate to better clinical outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32001384
pii: S1529-9430(20)30021-8
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.01.009
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

677-684

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Michael Kjær Jacobsen (MK)

Center for Spine Surgery & Research, Region of Southern Denmark, Østre Hougvej 55, DK-5500, Middelfart, Denmark; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Andreas Killerich Andresen (AK)

Center for Spine Surgery & Research, Region of Southern Denmark, Østre Hougvej 55, DK-5500, Middelfart, Denmark; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Annette Bennedsgaard Jespersen (AB)

Center for Spine Surgery & Research, Region of Southern Denmark, Østre Hougvej 55, DK-5500, Middelfart, Denmark; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Christian Støttrup (C)

Center for Spine Surgery & Research, Region of Southern Denmark, Østre Hougvej 55, DK-5500, Middelfart, Denmark; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Leah Y Carreon (LY)

Center for Spine Surgery & Research, Region of Southern Denmark, Østre Hougvej 55, DK-5500, Middelfart, Denmark; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Søren Overgaard (S)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, DK-5000 Odense C, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.

Mikkel Ø Andersen (MØ)

Center for Spine Surgery & Research, Region of Southern Denmark, Østre Hougvej 55, DK-5500, Middelfart, Denmark; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark. Electronic address: Mikkel.Andersen2@rsyd.dk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH