The use of beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
- 953 Downloads
Due to the disadvantages of iliac crest bone and the poor bone quality of autograft gained from decompression surgery, alternative filling materials for posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages have been developed. β-Tricalcium phosphate is widely used in cages. However, data regarding the fusion rate of β-TCP assessed by computer tomography are currently not available.
A prospective clinical trial involving 34 patients (56.7 years) was performed: 26 patients were treated with single-level, five patients double-level and three patients triple-level PLIF filled with β-TCP and bone marrow aspirate perfusion, and additional posterior pedicle screw fixation. Fusion was assessed by CT and X-rays 1 year after surgery using a validated fusion scale published previously. Functional status was evaluated with the visual analogue scale and the Oswestry Disability Index before and 1 year after surgery.
Forty-five levels in 34 patients were evaluated by CT and X-ray with a follow-up period of at least 1 year. Clinically, the average ODI and VAS for leg and back scores improved significantly (P < 0.001). CT assessment revealed solid fusion in 12 levels (26.67 %) and indeterminate fusion in 15 levels (34.09 %). Inadequate fusion (non-union) was detected in 17 levels (38.63 %).
The technique of PLIF using β-TCP yielded a good clinical outcome 1 year after surgery, however, a high rate of pseudoarthrosis was found in this series therefore, we do not recommend β-TCP as a bone graft substitute using the PLIF technique.
KeywordsPosterior lumbar interbody fusion Alternative graft materials β-Tricalcium phosphate Fusion rate Computer tomography
Conflict of interest
- 5.Muschik M, Ludwig R, Halbhubner S, Bursche K, Stoll T (2001) Beta-tricalcium phosphate as a bone substitute for dorsal spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: preliminary results of a prospective clinical study. Eur Spine J 10(Suppl 2):S178–S184. doi: 10.1007/s005860100271 (Official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Yamada T, Yoshii T, Sotome S, Yuasa M, Kato T, Arai Y, Kawabata S, Tomizawa S, Sakaki K, Hirai T, Shinomiya K, Okawa A (2011) Hybrid grafting using bone marrow aspirate combined with porous beta-tricalcium phosphate and trephine bone for lumbar posterolateral spinal fusion: a prospective comparative study-versus local bone grafting. Spine 37(3):E174–E179. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182269d64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14(6):551–558. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1 (Official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Faundez AA, Schwender JD, Safriel Y, Gilbert TJ, Mehbod AA, Denis F, Transfeldt EE, Wroblewski JM (2009) Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior-posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients. Eur Spine J 18(2):203–211. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0845-0 (Official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Christensen FB, Laursen M, Gelineck J, Eiskjaer SP, Thomsen K, Bunger CE (2001) Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of radiograph interpretation with and without pedicle screw implants: the need for a detailed classification system in posterolateral spinal fusion. Spine 26(5):538–543 (discussion 543–534)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Kanayama M, Harada M, Oha F, Ohkoshi Y, Tada H, Yamamoto K, Yamane S (2002) Clinical results of single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F carbon cage filled with a mixture of local morselized bone and bioactive ceramic granules. Spine 27(3):258–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ito Z, Matsuyama Y, Sakai Y, Imagama S, Wakao N, Ando K, Hirano K, Tauchi R, Muramoto A, Matsui H, Matsumoto T, Kanemura T, Yoshida G, Ishikawa Y, Ishiguro N (2010) Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 35(21):E1101–E1105. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181de4f2e PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Ito K, Horie Y, Machino M, Kanbara S, Morita D, Imagama S, Ishiguro N, Kato F (2011) Extension CT scan: its suitability for assessing fusion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 20(9):1496–1502. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1739-0 (Official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schwender JD, Subach BR, Gornet MF, Ohno S (2008) Reliability and accuracy of fine-cut computed tomography scans to determine the status of anterior interbody fusions with metallic cages. Spine J 8(6):998–1002. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.12.004 (Official journal of the North American Spine Society)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Sailer P (2007) Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of fine-cut CT scans with reconstructions to determine the status of an instrumented posterolateral fusion with surgical exploration as reference standard. Spine 32(8):892–895. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000259808.47104.dd PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Lee JH, Park JW, Lee HS (2011) Fusion rates of a morselized local bone graft in polyetheretherketone cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion by quantitative analysis using consecutive three-dimensional computed tomography scans. Spine J. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.04.029 (Official journal of the North American Spine Society)Google Scholar
- 28.Lee JH, Jeon DW, Lee SJ, Chang BS, Lee CK (2010) Fusion rates and subsidence of morselized local bone grafted in titanium cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion using quantitative three-dimensional computed tomography scans. Spine 35(15):1460–1465. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c4baf5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY (2011) The effect of a radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 11(3):205–212. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.023 (Official journal of the North American Spine Society)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Yoshimura Y, Misawa H (2008) Union versus nonunion after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a comparison of long-term surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17(8):1107–1112. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0695-9 (Official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar