ArticleCureus2021
Bone Marrow Aspirate in Spine Surgery: Case Series and Review of the Literature.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of adult spine deformity: A retrospective comparison of bone morphogenic protein and bone marrow aspirate with bone allograft.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Sacral Bioneuromodulation: The Role of Bone Marrow Aspirate in Spinal Cord Injuries.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Combined effect of DBM, PRP, and bone marrow fluid on bone union in a rat posterolateral fusion model.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Chitosan 3D scaffolds with resolvin D1 for vertebral arthrodesis: a pilot study.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 · 2023Article
- Safety and efficacy of autologous bone marrow clot as a multifunctional bioscaffold for instrumental posterior lumbar fusion: a 1-year follow-up pilot study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background With the modernization of biotechnology, there has been a concerted effort to create novel biomaterials to promote arthrodesis for spine surgery. The novel use of the stem cells from bone marrow aspirate (BMA) to augment spine surgery is a burgeoning field because these cells are considered to be both osteoinductive and osteogenic. We sought to review the evidence behind the use of BMAs in spinal fusions and report the results of our own case series. Methods PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that investigated the use of stem cells for spine surgery. For our own case series, the medical records of 150 consecutive patients who underwent a lumbar spinal fusion with BMA were retrospectively reviewed for adverse events (AEs) for up to two years after surgery. Results In our case series, there were no AEs identified in 49% of our patients. Of the identified AEs, 61% were unrelated to the use of BMA (e.g., UTI and heart failure), with the remaining 39% likely unrelated to its use (e.g., back pain and anemia). There was a 92.8% arthrodesis rate with the use of BMA. Conclusions We reviewed the rationale, basic science, and clinical science for BMA usage in spine surgery and concluded that BMA is safe for use in spine surgery and is associated with a high rate of arthrodesis.
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.