Suppr超能文献

研究同种异体细胞骨基质在脊柱融合中的疗效:文献系统评价。

Investigating the efficacy of allograft cellular bone matrix for spinal fusion: a systematic review of the literature.

出版信息

Neurosurg Focus. 2021 Jun;50(6):E11. doi: 10.3171/2021.3.FOCUS2179.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The use of allograft cellular bone matrices (ACBMs) in spinal fusion has expanded rapidly over the last decade. Despite little objective data on its effectiveness, ACBM use has replaced the use of traditional autograft techniques, namely iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), in many centers.

METHODS

In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases of English-language articles over the time period from January 2001 to December 2020 to objectively assess the effectiveness of ACBMs, with an emphasis on the level of industry involvement in the current body of literature.

RESULTS

Limited animal studies (n = 5) demonstrate the efficacy of ACBMs in spinal fusion, with either equivalent or increased rates of fusion compared to autograft. Clinical human studies utilizing ACBMs as bone graft expanders or bone graft substitutes (n = 5 for the cervical spine and n = 8 for the lumbar spine) demonstrate the safety of ACBMs in spinal fusion, but fail to provide conclusive level I, II, or III evidence for its efficacy. Additionally, human studies are plagued with several limiting factors, such as small sample size, lack of prospective design, lack of randomization, absence of standardized assessment of fusion, and presence of industry support/relevant conflict of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

There exist very few objective, unbiased human clinical studies demonstrating ACBM effectiveness or superiority in spinal fusion. Impartial, well-designed prospective studies are needed to offer evidence-based best practices to patients in this domain.

摘要

目的

在过去十年中,同种异体细胞骨基质(ACBM)在脊柱融合中的应用迅速扩大。尽管其有效性的客观数据很少,但在许多中心,ACBM 的使用已经取代了传统的自体移植物技术,即髂嵴骨移植物(ICBG)。

方法

根据 PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南,对 2001 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间的 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库中的英文文章进行了系统评价,客观评估了 ACBM 的有效性,重点是行业参与当前文献的程度。

结果

有限的动物研究(n=5)表明 ACBM 在脊柱融合中的疗效,与自体移植物相比,融合率要么相等,要么增加。将 ACBM 用作骨移植物扩张器或骨移植物替代品的临床人体研究(颈椎 n=5,腰椎 n=8)表明 ACBM 在脊柱融合中的安全性,但未能提供其疗效的明确 I、II 或 III 级证据。此外,人体研究存在几个限制因素,例如样本量小、缺乏前瞻性设计、缺乏随机化、缺乏融合的标准化评估以及存在行业支持/相关利益冲突。

结论

在脊柱融合中,几乎没有客观、无偏的人体临床研究证明 ACBM 的有效性或优越性。需要进行公正、精心设计的前瞻性研究,为该领域的患者提供循证最佳实践。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验