Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction by instrumented vertebral arthrodesis with autologous bone graft from local harvesting without bone substitute use: results with mean 3 year follow-up

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

Abstract

Purpose

Bone substitutes’ advantage is enhancing arthrodesis biologic support without further autologous bone graft harvested from other skeleton sites, as from posterior iliac crests; however, in our experience, bone substitutes’ integration is often incomplete.

Methods

From 2012 to 2017, we operated 108 patients by posterior instrumented vertebral arthrodesis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) correction, mean main curve 80° Cobb, and mean age 12 years and 6 months, with all pedicle screws instrumentation in main curve/curves area and hooks at upper tip of implant; bone graft has been harvested only at vertebral level, without bone substitutes or autologous graft from other patient sites or allogenic bone graft. We matched this group with 98 patients previously operated in which we used calcium triphosphate.

Results

At 3 year mean follow-up, all patients in group treated with autologous bone graft only have complete and stable arthrodesis without loss of correction (mean curve 27° Cobb) or instrumentation failure. At 6 year mean follow-up in the group treated with autologous bone graft augmented by calcium triphosphate, 96 patients have stable arthrodesis without loss of correction (mean curve 24°), 1 case has implant break, and 1 case has 8° Cobb loss of correction.

Conclusion

Bone substitutes are a further cost in arthrodesis surgery and suboptimal integration leaves foreign bodies on vertebras. Our experience shows that all pedicle screw instrumentation and bracing after surgery obtain stable correction showing in time a solid arthrodesis with autologous bone only, harvested at local site, without bone substitutes or further bone graft.

Graphical abstract

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Niu CC, Tsai TT, Fu TS, Lai PL, Chen LH, Chen WJ (2009) A comparison of posterolateral lumbar fusion comparing Autograft, Autogenous laminectomy bone with bone marrow aspirate, and calcium sulphate with bone marrow aspirate. A prospective randomized study. Spine 34(25):2715–2719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Asselmeier M, Caspari R, Bottenfield S (1993) A review of allograft processing and sterilization techniques and their role in transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus. Am J Sport Med 21:170–175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Knapp DR, Jones ET, Blanco JS (2005) Allograft bone in spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S73–S76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Price CT, Connoly JF, Carantzas AC (2003) Comparison of bone grafts for posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 28:793–798

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Betz RR, Lavelle WF, Samdani AF (2010) Bone grafting options in children. Spine 35:1648–1654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carragee EJ, Chu G, Rohatgi R (2013) Cancer risk after use of recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:1537–1545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Crostelli M, Mazza O, Mariani M (2012) Free-hand pedicle screws insertion technique in the treatment of 120 consecutive scoliosis cases operated without use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 1):S43–S49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldstein C, Drew B (2011) When is a spine fused? Injury 42(3):306–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Choudri 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(1):23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Selby MD, Clarck SR, Hall DJ, Freeman BJC (2012) Radiologic assessment of spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:694–703

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Theologis AA, Tabaraee E, Lin T, Lubicky J, Diab M (2015) Type of bone graft or substitute does not affect outcome of spine fusion with instrumentation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 40(17):1345–1351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Violas P, Chapuis M, Bracq H (2004) Local autograft bone in the surgical management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29(2):189–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Kleuver M, Lewis SJ, Germscheid NM, Kamper SJ, Alanay A, Berven SH, Cheung KM, Ito M, Lenke LG, Polly DW (2014) Optimal surgical care for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an international consensus. Eur Spine J 23(12):2603–2618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carragee EJ, Comer GC, Smith M (2011) Local bone graft harvesting and volumes in posterolateral lumbar fusion: a technical report. Spine J 11(6):540–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lai PL, Chen LH, Niu CC, Fu TS, Chen WJ (2004) Relation between laminectomy and development of adjacent segment instability after lumbar fusion with pedicle fixation. Spine 29(22):2527–2532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yeh YC, Niu CC, Chen LH, Chen WJ, Lai PL (2016) Comparison between harvesting and preserving the spinous process for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:366

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen WJ, Tsai TT, Chen LH, Niu CC, Lai Pl FuTS, Mc Carthy K (2005) the fusion rate of calcium sulphate with local autograft bone compared with autologous iliac bone graft for instrumented short segment spinal fusion. Spine 30(20):2293–2297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly CM, Wilkins RM, Gitelis S, Hartjen C, Watson JT, Kim PT (2001) The use of a surgical grade calcium sulphate as a bone graft substitute; results of a multicentre trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 382:42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen CL, Liu CL, Sun SS, Han PY, Lee CS, Lo WH (2006) posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with autogenous bone chips from laminectomy extended with OsteoSet. J Chin Med Assoc 69(12):581–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Luu ML, Tsai TT, Chen LH, Lai PL, Fu TS, Niu CC, Chen WJ (2013) Comparison of fusion rates between autologous iliac bone graft and calcium sulphate with laminectomy bone chips in multilevel posterolateral spine fusion. Open J Orthop 3:119

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osvaldo Mazza.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Marco Crostelli MD, Osvaldo Mazza MD, Massimo Mariani MD, Dario Mascello MD, and Carlo Iorio MD declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 287 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crostelli, M., Mazza, O., Mariani, M. et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction by instrumented vertebral arthrodesis with autologous bone graft from local harvesting without bone substitute use: results with mean 3 year follow-up. Eur Spine J 27 (Suppl 2), 175–181 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5597-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5597-x

Keywords

Navigation