Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, UCLA Comprehensive Spine Center, 1250 16th St., Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 May 15;35(11):1144-50. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bb5203.
Retrospective cohort study.
Compare the efficacy of rhBMP-2 and bone marrow aspirate with allograft (BMAA) as alternatives to autograft in instrumented revision posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).
The use of autogenous bone graft is the current gold standard in revision PLF; however, this practice is associated with significant donor-site morbidity. Revision PLF pose the additional challenges of a less than ideal fusion environment and a limited quantity of autogenous bone graft. rhBMP-2 and BMAA have been shown to be acceptable bone graft substitutes in several primary orthopedic procedures. The role of these bone graft substitutes in instrumented revision PLF has yet to be determined.
Sixty-two patients (125 levels) who underwent instrumented revision PLF with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Group 1 contained 24 patients (13 single- [group 1A] and 11 multilevel [group 1B]) who underwent instrumented revision PLF using rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge. Group 2 included 18 patients (7 single- [group 2A] and 11 multilevel [group 2B]) with procedures using BMAA. Group 3 consisted of 20 patients (10 single- [group 3A] and 10 multilevel [group 3B]) with procedures using autograft. Demographic, surgical, and clinical data were collected from medical records. Time to solid fusion mass formation, fusion rate, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. The progression of the fusion mass was evaluated by reviewing radiographs. A diagnosis of nonunion was based on exploration during an additional revision surgery or evidence of nonunion on dynamic radiographs or computerized tomography. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) before surgery and at 6-week, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups.
Overall fusion rate was 93.5% (58/62). All single-level revision PLF achieved solid fusion. Groups 1B and 3B achieved 100% fusion, (11/11) and (10/10), respectively;whereas group 2B had a fusion rate of 63.6% (7/11). Group 1 also developed a solid fusion mass earlier than the other groups. There was a significant decrease between preoperative and 2-year postoperative VAS scores in all groups, but no significant difference among groups. Three patients in group 2 required an additional revision surgery.
rhBMP-2 may be an appropriate alternative to autogenous bone graft in both single- and multilevel revision PLF, whereas BMAA may be appropriate as a substitute in single-level revision PLF. The use of BMAA in single-level revisions may be a more cost-effective option than rhBMP-2.
回顾性队列研究。
比较 rhBMP-2 和骨髓抽吸与同种异体移植物(BMAA)作为后路腰椎融合术(PLF)翻修时自体移植物替代物的疗效。
自体骨移植物的使用是 PLF 翻修的当前金标准;然而,这种做法与明显的供体部位发病率有关。PLF 翻修还面临不理想的融合环境和有限数量的自体骨移植物的额外挑战。rhBMP-2 和 BMAA 已被证明在几种主要的骨科手术中是可接受的骨移植物替代品。这些骨移植物替代品在器械化 PLF 翻修中的作用尚未确定。
纳入 62 例(125 个节段)接受后路腰椎融合术翻修并至少随访 2 年的患者。第 1 组包括 24 例患者(13 例单节段[第 1A 组]和 11 例多节段[第 1B 组]),采用可吸收胶原海绵上的 rhBMP-2 进行后路腰椎融合术翻修。第 2 组包括 18 例患者(7 例单节段[第 2A 组]和 11 例多节段[第 2B 组])采用 BMAA 进行手术。第 3 组由 20 例患者(10 例单节段[第 3A 组]和 10 例多节段[第 3B 组])采用自体移植物进行手术。从病历中收集人口统计学、手术和临床数据。评估融合质量形成的时间、融合率、并发症和临床结果。通过回顾性影像学评估融合质量的进展。非融合的诊断基于额外的翻修手术中的探查,或动态影像学或计算机断层扫描上的非融合证据。临床结果在术前和术后 6 周、6、12 和 24 个月的随访时使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行评估。
总体融合率为 93.5%(58/62)。所有单节段 PLF 均获得了坚实的融合。第 1B 组和第 3B 组的融合率均为 100%(11/11)和(10/10),而第 2B 组的融合率为 63.6%(7/11)。第 1 组也比其他组更早形成了坚实的融合质量。所有组在术前和 2 年随访时的 VAS 评分均显著下降,但组间无显著差异。第 2 组中有 3 例患者需要进行额外的翻修手术。
rhBMP-2 可能是后路腰椎融合术翻修时自体骨移植物的合适替代品,而 BMAA 可能是后路腰椎融合术单节段翻修的合适替代品。与 rhBMP-2 相比,BMAA 用于单节段翻修可能是一种更具成本效益的选择。