ReviewGlobal spine journal2024
Cellular Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery - Are They Worth the Risk: A Systematic Review.
Review in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fracture healing: from molecular and cellular mechanisms to therapeutic strategies.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Do Cellular Allografts Improve Spinal Fusion Enough to Justify Their Cost and Potential Risk? A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Cost.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Review
- What Graft Should Be Used in Pediatric Posterior Spinal Fusion? Current Trends and Perspective Among Experts.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery: a review.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Efficacy of an allograft cellular bone matrix as an alternative to autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: radiological results & safety.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Trends in spinal implant utilization and pricing.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic Review.
objectiveTo review the literature for complications and outcomes after the implantation of cellular bone matrix (CBM) during spine fusion.
methodsThe PubMed database was queried from inception to January 31, 2023 for any articles that discussed the role of and identified a specific CBM in spinal fusion procedures. Adverse events, reoperations, methods, and fusion rates were collected from all studies and reported.
resultsSix hundred articles were identified, of which 19 were included that reported outcomes of 7 different CBM products. Seven studies evaluated lumbar fusion, 11 evaluated cervical fusion, and 1 study reported adverse events of a single CBM product. Only 4 studies were comparative studies while others were limited to case series. Fusion rates ranged from 68% to 98.7% in the lumbar spine and 87% to 100% in the cervical spine, although criteria for radiographic fusion was variable. While 7 studies reported no adverse events, there was no strict consensus on what constituted a complication. One study reported catastrophic disseminated tuberculosis from donor contaminated CBM. The authors of 14 studies had conflicts of interest with either the manufacturer or distributor for their analyzed CBM.
conclusionsCurrent evidence regarding the use of cellular bone matrix as an osteobiologic during spine surgery is weak and limited to low-grade non-comparative studies subject to industry funding. While reported fusion rates are high, the risk of severe complications should not be overlooked. Further large clinical trials are required to elucidate whether the CBMs offer any benefits that outweigh the risks.
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.