Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27909654›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2016

Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies.

Abhijeet Kadam, Paul W Millhouse, Christopher K Kepler, Kris E Radcliff, Michael G Fehlings, Michael E Janssen, Rick C Sasso, James J Benedict, Alexander R Vaccaro

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05038527 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

ABM/P-15 Bone Graft vs Traditional Bone Graft in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery - a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRigshospitalet, DenmarkRan2021 to 2025Enrolled120ConditionsSpine Deformity, Bone Graft, Complications, Adverse EventsArmsABM/P-15 bone graft
NCT05238740 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Radiographic Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcome of Anterior Lumbar and Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Performed With Either Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 or ViviGen® Cellular Bone Matrix, a Prospective Randomised Assessor Blind, Monocentric Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLindenhofgruppe AGRan2022 to 2032Enrolled168ConditionsSpondylosis, Spondylolisthesis, Degenerative Disc DiseaseArmsViviGen®, rhBMP-2
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ceramic bone graft substitute vs autograft in XLIF: a prospective randomized single-center evaluation of radiographic and clinical outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Results of lumbar spondylodeses using different bone grafting materials after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Thoracic corpectomy and vertebral body reconstruction (TCVBR): a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Abhijeet KadamPennsylvania Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul W MillhouseRothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Christopher K KeplerRothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Kris E RadcliffRothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Michael G FehlingsToronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Michael E JanssenCenter for Spine & Orthopaedics, Denver, CO.
Rick C SassoIndiana Spine Group, Indianapolis, IN.
James J BenedictCerapedics, Westminster, CO.
Alexander R VaccaroRothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
Rothman Institute · USIndiana Spine Group · USPennsylvania Hospital · USToronto Western Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA narrative review of literature.

objectiveThis manuscript intends to provide a review of clinically relevant bone substitutes and bone expanders for spinal surgery in terms of efficacy and associated clinical outcomes, as reported in contemporary spine literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ever since the introduction of allograft as a substitute for autologous bone in spinal surgery, a sea of literature has surfaced, evaluating both established and newly emerging fusion alternatives. An understanding of the available fusion options and an organized evidence-based approach to their use in spine surgery is essential for achieving optimal results.

methodsA Medline search of English language literature published through March 2016 discussing bone graft substitutes and fusion extenders was performed. All clinical studies reporting radiological and/or patient outcomes following the use of bone substitutes were reviewed under the broad categories of Allografts, Demineralized Bone Matrices (DBM), Ceramics, Bone Morphogenic proteins (BMPs), Autologous growth factors (AGFs), Stem cell products and Synthetic Peptides. These were further grouped depending on their application in lumbar and cervical spine surgeries, deformity correction or other miscellaneous procedures viz. trauma, infection or tumors; wherever data was forthcoming. Studies in animal populations and experimental

resultsA total of 181 clinical studies were found suitable to be included in the review. More than a third of the published articles (62 studies, 34.25%) focused on BMP. Ceramics (40 studies) and Allografts (39 studies) were the other two highly published groups of bone substitutes. Highest radiographic fusion rates were observed with BMPs, followed by allograft and DBM. There were no significant differences in the reported clinical outcomes across all classes of bone substitutes.

conclusionsThere is a clear publication bias in the literature, mostly favoring BMP. Based on the available data, BMP is however associated with the highest radiographic fusion rate. Allograft is also very well corroborated in the literature. The use of DBM as a bone expander to augment autograft is supported, especially in the lumbar spine. Ceramics are also utilized as bone graft extenders and results are generally supportive, although limited. The use of autologous growth factors is not substantiated at this time. Cell matrix or stem cell-based products and the synthetic peptides have inadequate data. More comparative studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bone graft substitutes overall.

Indexed as

allograftsautologous growth factorsbone substitutesceramicsdemineralized bone matrix (dbm)hydroxyapatitei-factorosteogenic protein-1 (op-1)rhbmp-2spine fusionsynthetic peptidesβ tricalcium phosphate (β-tcp)

Identifiers

PMID27909654
PMCPMC5130324
OpenAlexW2523598734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.