ReviewJOR spine2024
Efficacy of using autologous cells with graft substitutes for spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and imaging features.
Review in JOR spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The bone microenvironment: new insights into the role of stem cells and cell communication in bone regeneration.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past several decades, there has been a notable increase in the total number of spinal fusion procedures worldwide. Advanced spinal fusion techniques, surgical approaches, and new alternatives in grafting materials and implants, as well as autologous cellular therapies, have been widely employed for treating spinal diseases. While the potential of cellular therapies to yield better clinical results is appealing, supportive data are needed to confirm this claim. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone up to February 2024. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Downs and Black checklist. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: fusion success, complications/adverse events, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Thirteen studies involving 836 patients were included, with 7 studies considered for the meta-analysis. Results indicated that the use of graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies demonstrated higher fusion success rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, lower VAS score at 6 months, and lower ODI score at 3, 6, and 12 months. The complication rate was similar between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. Although the current literature remains limited, this meta-analysis suggests that the incorporation of cellular therapies such as bone marrow and platelet derivatives with graft substitutes is associated with a higher fusion rate and significant improvements in functional status and pain following spinal fusion. Future well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to definitively assess the clinical effectiveness of cellular therapies in spinal fusion.
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.