A Prospective, Randomized Study Evaluating Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed Using a Truss Technology-Based Interbody Fusion Device With Homologous Bone or Bone Marrow Aspirate.
ALIF
anterior truss based interbody implant
bone marrow aspirate
crushed cancellous bone
fusion
Journal
International journal of spine surgery
ISSN: 2211-4599
Titre abrégé: Int J Spine Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101579005
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
9
2
2021
pubmed:
10
2
2021
medline:
10
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Our group used vertebral bone marrow aspirate (BMA) with an anterior truss-based interbody implant to promote fusion. This implant has biomechanical characteristics that may enhance bone on-growth and through-growth and allow for the use of BMA clot alone. The primary end point was comparison of the proportion of patients who achieved fusion with the implant packed with either crushed cancellous homologous bone chips (CCB) alone or with BMA clot alone. Patients were randomized to receive either BMA clot or CCB in the implant. Both groups also had supplemental fixation. Clinical assessments were performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months, including for the Oswestry Disability Index, leg and back visual analog scale, EQ5-D, reoperations, complications, and adverse events. Radiographs were obtained prior to discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. A computed tomography scan was performed 3 months postoperatively. Radiographs were assessed by an independent radiologist to determine fusion status and evidence of subsidence. Between January 2015 and February 2016, 42 consecutive patients were randomized into 1 of the 2 study groups. There were significant postoperative changes within both groups in pain improvement across all outcome scales. There were no significant differences between groups in change scores from preoperative to assessments at any follow-up time point, with the exception of the change in EQ-5D and visual analog scale at 6 months; however, there was no difference at 3 or 12 months. There were no device-related adverse events in either group. All patients achieved grade II fusion at 3 months postoperatively. There was no significant difference in implant subsidence between groups or smokers versus nonsmokers. The clinical outcomes of this study suggest that reliable fusion can be obtained using an anterior truss-based implant with either CCB or BMA alone. 2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Our group used vertebral bone marrow aspirate (BMA) with an anterior truss-based interbody implant to promote fusion. This implant has biomechanical characteristics that may enhance bone on-growth and through-growth and allow for the use of BMA clot alone. The primary end point was comparison of the proportion of patients who achieved fusion with the implant packed with either crushed cancellous homologous bone chips (CCB) alone or with BMA clot alone.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients were randomized to receive either BMA clot or CCB in the implant. Both groups also had supplemental fixation. Clinical assessments were performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months, including for the Oswestry Disability Index, leg and back visual analog scale, EQ5-D, reoperations, complications, and adverse events. Radiographs were obtained prior to discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. A computed tomography scan was performed 3 months postoperatively. Radiographs were assessed by an independent radiologist to determine fusion status and evidence of subsidence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Between January 2015 and February 2016, 42 consecutive patients were randomized into 1 of the 2 study groups. There were significant postoperative changes within both groups in pain improvement across all outcome scales. There were no significant differences between groups in change scores from preoperative to assessments at any follow-up time point, with the exception of the change in EQ-5D and visual analog scale at 6 months; however, there was no difference at 3 or 12 months. There were no device-related adverse events in either group. All patients achieved grade II fusion at 3 months postoperatively. There was no significant difference in implant subsidence between groups or smokers versus nonsmokers.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical outcomes of this study suggest that reliable fusion can be obtained using an anterior truss-based implant with either CCB or BMA alone.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33560252
pii: 7141
doi: 10.14444/7141
pmc: PMC7872402
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
924-935Informations de copyright
This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2020 ISASS.
Références
Spine J. 2019 Jul;19(7):1294-1301
pubmed: 30872148
J Neurosurg Sci. 2019 Feb;63(1):11-18
pubmed: 27879952
J Biomech. 2016 Dec 8;49(16):4090-4097
pubmed: 27836500
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017 Mar;60(2):225-231
pubmed: 28264244
J Spine Surg. 2017 Jun;3(2):168-175
pubmed: 28744497
J Forensic Sci. 2015 Jan;60(1):5-12
pubmed: 24961154
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 Apr;80:203-208
pubmed: 29433006
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Dec;34:94-99
pubmed: 27469413
J Invest Surg. 2016 Dec;29(6):373-382
pubmed: 27064603
Surg Neurol Int. 2011;2:115
pubmed: 21886888
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
Pain. 1983 May;16(1):87-101
pubmed: 6602967
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Dec 15;31(26):E992-8
pubmed: 17172990
Physiotherapy. 1980 Aug;66(8):271-3
pubmed: 6450426
Clin Spine Surg. 2016 Jun;29(5):E252-8
pubmed: 27196005
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017 Apr;155:1-6
pubmed: 28187368
J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Aug 25;12(1):126
pubmed: 28841904
Adv Orthop. 2015;2015:895931
pubmed: 26366303
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Jun 15;20(12):1410-8
pubmed: 7676341
Surg Neurol Int. 2013 Jul 09;4(Suppl 5):S343-52
pubmed: 23878769
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Jun;20(4):278-81
pubmed: 17538351
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Spine J. 2009 Jul;9(7):607-8
pubmed: 19560056
Global Spine J. 2018 Dec;8(8):784-794
pubmed: 30560029