Increasing Fusion Rate Between 1 and 2 Years After Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion and the Role of Bone Grafting

14Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Study Design.Two-year clinical and radiographic follow-up of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, intra-patient controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing a bone graft substitute (AttraX®Putty) with autograft in instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) surgery.Objectives.The aim of this study was to compare PLF rates between 1 and 2 years of follow-up and between graft types, and to explore the role of bone grafting based on the location of the PLF mass.Summary of Background Data.There are indications that bony fusion proceeds over time, but it is unknown to what extent this can be related to bone grafting.Methods.A total of 100 adult patients underwent a primary, single- or multilevel, thoracolumbar PLF. After instrumentation and preparation for grafting, the randomized allocation side of AttraX®Putty was disclosed. The contralateral posterolateral gutters were grafted with autograft. At 1-year follow-up, and in case of no fusion at 2 years, the fusion status of both sides of each segment was blindly assessed on CT scans. Intertransverse and facet fusion were scored separately. Difference in fusion rates after 1 and 2 years and between grafts were analyzed with a Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model (P < 0.05).Results.The 2-year PLF rate (66 patients) was 70% at the AttraX®Putty and 68% at the autograft side, compared to 55% and 52% after 1 year (87 patients). GEE analysis demonstrated a significant increase for both conditions (odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.5-2.7, P < 0.001), but no difference between the grafts (P = 0.595). Ongoing bone formation was only observed between the facet joints.Conclusion.This intra-patient controlled trial demonstrated a significant increase in PLF rate between 1 and 2 years after instrumented thoracolumbar fusion, but no difference between AttraX®Putty and autograft. Based on the location of the PLF mass, this increase is most likely the result of immobilization instead of grafting.Level of Evidence: 1.

References Powered by Scopus

The oswestry disability index

4377Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: Towards international consensus regarding minimal important change

1593Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis

1004Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

An In Vitro Model to Test the Influence of Immune Cell Secretome on Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Osteogenic Differentiation

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ceramic bone graft substitute vs autograft in XLIF: a prospective randomized single-center evaluation of radiographic and clinical outcomes

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Circumferential Fusion Employing Transforaminal vs. Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion—A Potential Impact on Implants Stability

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mechteld Lehr, A., Oner, F. C., Delawi, D., Stellato, R. K., Hoebink, E. A., Kempen, D. H. R., … Kruyt, M. C. (2020). Increasing Fusion Rate Between 1 and 2 Years After Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion and the Role of Bone Grafting. Spine, 45(20), 1403–1410. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003558

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

50%

Researcher 9

45%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 15

71%

Nursing and Health Professions 3

14%

Engineering 2

10%

Chemical Engineering 1

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free