ArticleAsian spine journal2016
Bone Union Rate Following Instrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: Comparison between Demineralized Bone Matrix versus Hydroxyapatite.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiographic and Clinical Adjacent Segment Disease After Posterior Instrumented Fusion for Traumatic Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Vertebral Fractures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Fusion Rates among Various Demineralized Bone Matrices in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Demineralized Bone Matrix and Fibers in Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Demineralized Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery: A Review of Current Applications and Future Trends.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Surgical outcomes of two kinds of demineralized bone matrix putties/local autograft composites in instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Comparison of Fusion Rate between Demineralized Bone Matrix versus Autograft in Lumbar Fusion : Meta-Analysis.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective study. PURPOSE: To compare the union rate of posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) using demineralized bone matrix (DBM) versus hydroxyapatite (HA) as bone graft extender. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: To our knowledge, there has been no clinical trial to compare the outcomes of DBM versus HA as a graft material for PLF.
methodsWe analyzed prospectively collected data from consecutive 79 patients who underwent instrumented PLF. Patients who received DBM were assigned to group B (n=38), and patients who received HA were assigned into group C (n=41). The primary study outcome was fusion rate assessed with radiographs. The secondary outcomes included pain intensity using a visual analogue scale, functional outcome using Oswestry disability index score, laboratory tests of inflammatory profiles and infection rate.
resultsOne year postoperatively, bone fusion was achieved in 73% in group B and 58% in group C without significant difference between the groups (
conclusionsDBM would provide noninferior outcomes compared to the HA as a fusion material for PLF, and could be a notable alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.