Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40104322›Full record

ReviewTurkish journal of medical sciences2025

Synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery: a review.

Aydın Sinan Apaydin, Eli Johnson, Prince Antwi, Brett Rocos, Michael M Haglund, Christopher I Shaffrey, Peter Passias, Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr, Khoi Than

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Aydın Sinan ApaydinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2916-9550
Eli JohnsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1960-0789
Prince AntwiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8946-3241
Brett RocosDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0808-5585
Michael M HaglundDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6332-0808
Christopher I ShaffreyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9760-8386
Peter PassiasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1479-4070
Muhammad M Abd-El-BarrDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7151-2861
Khoi ThanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2026-7004

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteobiologics are increasingly used in orthopedics and spine surgery to facilitate bone healing and prevent nonunion. Synthetic osteobiologics are artificial materials crafted in laboratories that aim to replicate the natural composition and functionality of bone. Notable materials such as calcium phosphate and calcium sulfate are engineered to mirror the mineral aspect of bone. They mimic human bone functionality, exhibiting osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic properties. These characteristics promote cell attachment, migration, recruitment, and differentiation. Consequently, synthetic osteobiologics (osteoconductive grafts) have been introduced in bone fracture repair. The main strength of synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery lies in improving fusion rates and clinical outcomes. The commercial biologics landscape boasts an excess of 350 bone substitute materials, a number that continues to grow exponentially with the development of subtypes. However, the proliferation of these products, primarily driven by the medical device industry and nonacademic entities, has been accompanied by a significant dearth of supporting empirical data. This deficiency underscores the imperative need for rigorous scrutiny and research to establish a solid foundation for their utilization. Healthcare professionals require high-quality research in large prospective studies with satisfactory follow-up periods to interpret and compare the performance of osteobiologics. It is particularly imperative to study the added cost of using these materials in spine surgery. In the current review, we provide an overview of the currently available synthetic osteobiologics used in spine surgery.

Indexed as

Bone SubstitutesOrthopedic ProceduresSpineBiocompatible MaterialsCalcium PhosphatesCalcium SulfateHumansBiocompatible MaterialsBone SubstitutesCalcium PhosphatesCalcium Sulfateosteobiologicsspine fusionSynthetic osteobiologics

Identifiers

PMID40104322
PMCPMC11913509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.