ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Orthobiologics in spine surgery: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolution of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Contemporary Advances and Future Directions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Orthobiologics play a critical role in contemporary spine surgery. While autologous bone graft remains the gold standard for spinal fusion, its use is limited by donor site pain and morbidity, finite graft volume, and reduced osteoinductive capacity in the mineralized state. A range of orthobiologic materials has been developed to address these limitations. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the orthobiologic options currently used in spine surgery and outline their key features, advantages, and limitations. Methods: A nonsystematic review of the literature was performed using electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed articles relevant to the use of orthobiologics in spine surgery. Articles were reviewed in full by the authors. Orthobiologic materials were categorized, and their principal benefits and drawbacks were synthesized for inclusion in this review. Key Content and Findings: Allografts, including demineralized bone matrix (DBM), provide an osteoconductive scaffold without donor site morbidity, thought heir osteoinductive capacity is variable and they lack intrinsic osteogenic potential. Growth factors, such as recombinant human bone morphogenic proteins (rhBMPs), act as potent fusion adjuvants by stimulating osteogenesis; however, concerns remain regarding their safety profile and off-label applications. Newer options, such as synthetic peptide-based compounds (e.g., P-15) and cellular-augmented allografts, represent a biomimetic approach designed to replicate natural bone matrix components and enhance fusion rates. Conclusions: Orthobiologics are a rapidly evolving field of bone graft substitutes and extenders that can augment spinal fusion rates while minimizing the drawbacks of autologous graft harvest. Ongoing research into safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness will be critical to optimize their role in spine surgery.
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.