Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25600107›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2015

[Use of bone graft replacement in spinal fusions].

K-M Scheufler, D Diesing

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Sustained delivery of PlGF-2RSC advances · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K-M ScheuflerRegionales Wirbelsäulenzentrum Kempen-Moers, Hospital zum Heiligen Geist Kempen GmbH, Von-Broichhausen-Allee 1, 47906, Kempen, Deutschland, Kai-Michael.Scheufler@krankenhaus-kempen.de.
D Diesing
Hospital zum Heiligen Geist · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rationale for the increasing use of bone graft replacement lies in the need for increased graft volume, the avoidance of typical autograft donor site morbidity, and the potential improvement of fusion rates in revision and complex reconstructive surgery.

objectivesThe purpose of this work is to offer the spinal surgeon an evidence-based guide for choosing the appropriate grafting material and for using it effectively. MATERIAL AND

methodsEvidence-based overview of physical and biological properties, clinical indications and results of osteoconductive and osteoinductive bone replacement materials.

resultsThe ideal bone replacement material should be osteoinductive and conductive, non-pathogenic, minimally antigenic, and (if required) mechanically stable. Compared to autograft, vascularization and remodeling of the fusion mass are delayed using allograft. Allogenous bone and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) possess limited osteoinductive properties and carry the risk of potential infectious disease transmission. Plasma-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate are commonly used in conjunction with an osteoconductive carrier materials. On-label use of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) is currently restricted to mono- and bisegmental anterior lumbar fusion. The fusion rates obtained with BMPs match those of autologous bone graft. Potential risks of rhBMP in clinical use include soft tissue reactions, radiculitis and potentially increased risk of cancer. Osteoconductive ceramics (HA, CC, CS, ß-TCP) are useful graft extenders and carriers for bone growth enhancers and antibiotics.

conclusionsOsteoconductive bioceramics with different mechanical and biological properties are available for use as graft extenders. In a defined group of anterior interbody fusion procedures (ACDF, ALIF), satisfactory fusion rates (> 90%) may be obtained with exclusive use of graft extenders, whereas their solitary use in posterolateral fusions is not advisable. Genuine bone replacement is currently feasible with BMPs. Their use should be restricted to specific indications such as complex revision surgery and pseudarthrosis.

Indexed as

Bone SubstitutesBone TransplantationCombined Modality TherapyHumansSpinal FusionBone Substitutes

Identifiers

PMID25600107
OpenAlexW11670575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.