Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Results of lumbar spondylodeses using different bone grafting materials after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Can a mixture of hydroxyapatite (HA) and autologous bone from decompression sites produce similar results when used for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)? In the current literature, autologous iliac crest bone grafts (ICBGs) have been reported the gold standard for this procedure. Indeed, to date, no clinical data have confirmed that a mixture of equal volumes of HA and local autologous bone produce similar results in term of fusion as the same volume of autologous ICBG alone.

Methods

Study design/setting This study was approved by the local ethics committee and completed in a prospective, randomized, single-blinded manner. The results of lumbar fusion using TLIF and different bone grafting materials were compared. Patient sample The patient sample included patients with spinal lumbar degenerative disease. Outcome measures The clinical outcome was determined using the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The radiological outcomes and fusion rates were determined with radiographs evaluated using the McAfee criteria and computed tomography (CT) data evaluated by the Williams criteria. Three blinded investigators (one radiologist and two orthopedic surgeons) assessed the data. The secondary variables included donor site morbidity. Methods The patients were admitted to our department for orthopedic surgery with degenerative lumbar pathologies (L2–S1) that required stabilization in one or two segments using a TLIF procedure. The patients were 18–80 years old. Only those patients who had degenerative lumbar pathologies and agreed to be educated about the study were included. The patients were divided into the following two randomized groups: group A: TLIF procedure using autologous ICBGs alone; and group B: TLIF procedure using local bone from decompression site mixed with hydroxyapatite. Each group received equal graft volumes. The mixture in group B consisted of equal volumes of local autograft (5 cc) and synthetic bone (5 cc). A graft volume of 10 cc was used at each fusion level. The patients were followed up at three appointments at 1.5, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Every patient received detailed education about the course of the study.

Results

Forty-eight patients finished the study (2 patients dropped out). The radiographic fusion rate did not significantly differ between the two groups. Based on the CT criteria, 83.3% of the patients showed fusion in both groups after 12 months. Furthermore, 95.3% of the patients in group A and 91.7% of the patients in group B showed bony spondylodeses according to the radiographic criteria at the 12-month follow-up. The donor site morbidity consisted of one patient with a wound infection and one with a hematoma in group A and two patients with persistent pain in group B. Group A also included one patient with cage subsidence of 4 mm and archived fusion after 12 months. In group B, one patient had a pedicle screw breakage and achieved fusion after 6 months. The clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. In both groups, the VAS and ODI data improved during the follow-up period (p < 0.05). No patients required additional surgeries.

Conclusions

Both groups demonstrated equivalent clinical outcomes. HA and autologous bone from decompression sites can achieve similar fusion rates to those achieved with identical volumes of the gold standard autologous graft. The graft mixture can be used for one- or two-level lumbar spondylodeses to avoid donor site morbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barbanti Brodano G, Griffoni C, Zanotti B, Gasbarrini A, Bandiera S, Ghermandi R, Boriani S (2015) A post-market surveillance analysis of the safety of hydroxyapatite-derived products as bone graft extenders or substitutes for spine fusion. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19:3548–3555

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blumenthal SL, Gill K (1993) Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a second surgical look at lumbar fusions. Spine 18:1186–1189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM (2000) Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 25:1437–1446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Schuler TC, Kleeman TJ, Zdeblick TA (2009) Six-year outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis with use of interbody fusion cages and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1181–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, Meisel H-J, Myhre SL, Hashimoto R, Park J-B, Tim Yoon S, Wang JC (2016) Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 25:509–5166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cammisa FP, Lowery G, Garfin SR, Geisler FH, Klara PM, McGuire RA, Sassard WR, Stubbs H, Block JE (2004) Two-year fusion rate equivalency between Grafton DBM gel and autograft in posterolateral spine fusion: a prospective controlled trial employing a side-by-side comparison in the same patient. Spine 29:660–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choudhri TF, Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, Watters WC, Dailey AT, Resnick DK, Sharan A, Wang JC, Kaiser MG (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion status. J Neurosurg Spine 21:23–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Diedrich O, Perlick L, Schmitt O, Kraft CN (2001) Radiographic characteristics on conventional radiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparative study between radiotranslucent and radiopaque cages. J Spinal Disord 14:522–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, Pryor PW, Hardacker JW, Carreon LY (2009) Two-year fusion and clinical outcomes in 224 patients treated with a single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion with iliac crest bone graft. Spine J 9:880–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eder C, Chavanne A, Meissner J, Bretschneider W, Tuschel A, Becker P, Ogon M (2011) Autografts for spinal fusion: osteogenic potential of laminectomy bone chips and bone shavings collected via high speed drill. Eur Spine J 20:1791–1795

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. France JC, Schuster JM, Moran K, Dettori JR (2015) Iliac crest bone graft in lumbar fusion: the effectiveness and safety compared with local bone graft, and graft site morbidity comparing a single-incision midline approach with a two-incision traditional approach. Global Spine J 5:195–206

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML (1997) Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 339:76–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle Fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler Technik. Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kadam A, Millhouse PW, Kepler CK, Radcliff KE, Fehlings MG, Janssen ME, Sasso RC, Benedict JJ, Vaccaro AR (2016) Bone substitutes and expanders in spine surgery: a review of their fusion efficacies. Int J Spine Surg 22(10):33

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ito Z, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Hachiya Y, Miura Y, Kamiya M, Yukawa Y, Sakai Y, Katayama Y, Wakao N, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N (2013) Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study. Eur Spine J 22:1158–1163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaiser MG, Groff MW, Watters WC, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, Sharan A, Wang JC, Dhall SS, Resnick DK (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 16: bone graft extenders and substitutes as an adjunct for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 21:106–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim DH, Lee N, Shin DA, Yi S, Kim KN, Ha Y (2016) Matched comparison of fusion rates between hydroxyapatite demineralized bone matrix and autograft in lumbar interbody fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 59:363–367

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim H, Lee C-K, Yeom J-S, Lee J-H, Lee K-H, Chang B-S (2012) The efficacy of porous hydroxyapatite bone chip as an extender of local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:1324–1330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwon B, Jenis LG (2005) Carrier materials for spinal fusion. Spine J 5:224S–230S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee C, Dorcil J, Radomisli TE (2004) Nonunion of the spine: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 419:71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee JH, Hwang C-J, Song B-W, Koo K-H, Chang B-S, Lee C-K (2009) A prospective consecutive study of instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion using synthetic hydroxyapatite (Bongros-HA) as a bone graft extender. J Biomed Mater Res A 90:804–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin B, Yu H, Chen Z, Huang Z, Zhang W (2016) Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:374

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu J, Deng H, Long X, Chen X, Xu R, Liu Z (2016) A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 25:1575–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nickoli MS, Hsu WK (2014) Ceramic-based bone grafts as a bone grafts extender for lumbar spine arthrodesis: a systematic review. Global Spine J 4:211–216

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ohtori S, Suzuki M, Koshi T, Takaso M, Yamashita M, Yamauchi K, Inoue G, Suzuki M, Orita S, Eguchi Y, Ochiai N, Kishida S, Kuniyoshi K, Nakamura J, Aoki Y, Ishikawa T, Arai G, Miyagi M, Kamoda H, Toyone T, Takahashi K (2011) Single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine with a local bone graft versus an iliac crest bone graft: a prospective, randomized study with a 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 20:635–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Putzier M, Strube P, Funk JF, Gross C, Mönig H-J, Perka C, Pruss A (2009) Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study. Eur Spine J 18:687–695

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ravindra VM, Godzik J, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH, Bisson EF, Hood RS, Cutler A, Ray WZ (2015) Vitamin D levels and 1-year fusion outcomes in elective spine surgery: a prospective observational study. Spine 40:1536–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reid JJ, Johnson JS, Wang JC (2011) Challenges to bone formation in spinal fusion. J Biomech 44:213–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Rodgers JA (2012) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of extreme lateral approach to interbody fusion with β-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite composite for lumbar degenerative conditions. Int J Spine Surg 6:24–28

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Santos ERG, Goss DG, Morcom RK, Fraser RD (2003) Radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages. Spine 28:997–1001

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shah RR, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor BA (2003) Comparison of plain radiographs with CT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cages and transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J 12:378–385

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Simmons JW (1985) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior elements as chip grafts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193:85–89

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tuchman A, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, Meisel H-J, Dettori JR, Park J-B, Yoon ST, Wang JC (2016) Iliac crest bone graft versus local autograft or allograft for lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J 6:592–606

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Vaz K, Verma K, Protopsaltis T, Schwab F, Lonner B, Errico T (2010) Bone grafting options for lumbar spine surgery: a review examining clinical efficacy and complications. SAS J 4:75–86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Williams AL, Gornet MF, Burkus JK (2005) CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: current concepts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:2057–2066

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yoo JS, Min SH, Yoon SH (2015) Fusion rate according to mixture ratio and volumes of bone graft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Nicolas Heinz vonderHoeh, Anna Voelker & Christoph-Eckhard Heyde

Authors
  1. Nicolas Heinz vonderHoeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Voelker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph-Eckhard Heyde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph-Eckhard Heyde.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Funding has been received by Medtronic for this project.

Conflict of interest

NH von der Höh and A Völker do not have any competing interests. CE Heyde received royalties from Medacta international.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

vonderHoeh, N.H., Voelker, A. & Heyde, CE. Results of lumbar spondylodeses using different bone grafting materials after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 26, 2835–2842 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5145-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5145-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation