Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34376500›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021

Demineralized Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery: A Review of Current Applications and Future Trends.

Nicholas A Shepard, Augustus J Rush, Nelson L Scarborough, Andrew J Carter, Frank M Phillips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Research Progress of Bone Grafting: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Demineralized Bone Matrix and Fibers in Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Nicholas A ShepardDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Augustus J RushDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Nelson L ScarboroughTheraCell, Inc, Sherman Oaks, California.
Andrew J CarterTheraCell, Inc, Sherman Oaks, California.
Frank M PhillipsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGraft augmentation for spinal fusion is an area of continued interest, with a wide variety of available products lacking clear recommendations regarding appropriate use. While iliac crest autograft has long been considered the "gold standard", suboptimal fusion rates along with harvest-related concerns continue to drive the need for graft alternatives. There are now multiple options of products with various characteristics that are available. These include demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and demineralized bone fibers (DBF), which have been used increasingly to promote spine fusion. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated narrative on the use of DBM/DBF in spine surgery.

methodsLiterature review.

resultsThe clinical application of DBM in spine surgery has evolved since its introduction in the mid-1900s. Early preclinical studies demonstrated its effectiveness in promoting fusion. When used in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, more recent clinical data suggest similar rates of fusion compared with autograft, although clinical studies are primarily limited to level III or IV evidence with few level I studies. However, significant variability in surgical technique and type of product used in the literature limits its interpretation and overall application.

conclusionsDBM and DBF are bone graft options in spine surgery. Most commonly used as graft extenders, they have the ability to increase the volume of traditional grafting techniques while potentially inducing new bone formation. While the literature supports good fusion rates when used in the lumbar spine and when used with adjuvant cages or additional grafting techniques in the cervical spine, care should be taken when using as a stand-alone product. As new literature emerges, DBM and DBF can be a useful method in a surgeon's armamentarium for fusion-based procedures.

Indexed as

biologicscervical fusiondemineralized bone matrix (DBM)lumbar fusionspine surgery

Identifiers

PMID34376500
PMCPMC8092935

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.