ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021
The Impact of Osteobiologic Subtype Selection on Perioperative Complications and Hospital-Reported Charges in Single- and Multi-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery: a review.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Dosing Strategy for Osteobiologics Used in ACDF Surgery: Influence on Fusion Rates and Associated Complications. A Systematic Literature Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Osteobiologics and Value-Based Care: Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Is outpatient spine surgery associated with new, persistent opioid use in opioid-naïve patients? A retrospective national claims database analysis.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the last several decades, various osteobiologics including allograft, synthetics, and growth factors have been used for lumbar spinal fusion surgery. However, the data on these osteobiologic products remain controversial with conflicting evidence in the literature. This study evaluates the influence of osteobiologic type selection on perioperative complications and hospital-reported charges in single-level and multilevel lumbar fusion.
methodsUsing the 2016 and 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 125,143 patients who received lumbar fusion with either autologous tissue substitute, nonautologous tissue substitute, or synthetic substitute. This cohort was split into single-level and multilevel fusion procedures, and one-to-one age and sex propensity score matching was implemented. This resulted in cohorts each consisting of 1967 patients for single-level fusion, and cohorts each consisting of 1657 patients for multilevel fusion. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons of means.
resultsAutologous single-level fusion resulted in significantly more postoperative pain at 30-, 90-, and 180-day follow-up compared to fusion with nonautologous graft (
conclusionSignificant differences were found between the groups with respect to rates of complications, including infection, postoperative pain, and neurologic injury. Furthermore, the hospital-reported charges of each procedure varied significantly. As the field of biologics continues to expand, it is important to continually evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of these novel materials and techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With increased utilization of osteobiologics and spinal fusion being a common procedure, longitudinal data on readmissions, and post-operative complications are critical in guiding evidence-based practice.
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.