Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 754–763 | Cite as

Comparison of a calcium phosphate bone substitute with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: a prospective study of fusion rates, clinical outcomes and complications with 24-month follow-up

  • Rhiannon M. Parker
  • Gregory M. MalhamEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) generally provides high rates of clinical improvement and fusion. However, rhBMP-2 has been associated with adverse effects. Recently, a beta tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) bone substitute has been developed. The aim of this study was to determine the fusion rates and clinical outcomes of patients treated with β-TCP compared to rhBMP-2.

Methods

One hundred and thirty-five consecutive patients who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion with β-TCP (n = 25) or rhBMP-2 (n = 110) in the interbody cage were included in the study. The 25 β-TCP patients were a group of consecutive patients from numbers 46 to 70. Clinical outcomes included back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36 physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS). CT scans were performed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months until confirmation of solid interbody fusion, with no further scans performed once fusion was achieved. Targeted CT at the operative level(s) was performed to reduce radiation exposure.

Results

At 24 months there was no significant difference between clinical outcomes of the β-TCP or rhBMP-2 patients, with improvements in back pain (46% and 49%; P = 0.98), leg pain (31 and 52%; P = 0.14), ODI (38 and 41%; P = 0.81), SF-36 PCS (37 and 38%; P = 0.87), and SF-36 MCS (8 and 8%; P = 0.93). The fusion rate was significantly higher for rhBMP-2 with 96% compared to 80% for β-TCP (P = 0.01). Separating patients into those with a standalone cage and those with supplemental posterior instrumentation, there was no significant difference between instrumented fusion rates of the β-TCP and rhBMP-2 patients at 6 (P = 0.44), 12 (P = 0.49), 18 (P = 0.31) or 24 (P = 0.14) months. For standalone patients there was a significant difference at 6 (P = 0.01), 12 (P = 0.008) and 18 months (P = 0.004) with higher fusion rates in the rhBMP-2 group; however, by 24 months this was not significant (P = 0.18).

Conclusions

Comparable clinical outcomes and complication rates suggest that β-TCP is a viable alternative to rhBMP-2. The difference in fusion rates for the standalone patients suggests that β-TCP may require supplemental posterior instrumentation to enhance fusion.

Keywords

AttraX Infuse Posterior instrumentation Standalone XLIF 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr Carl M. Blecher FRANZCR DDU for reporting the CT scans.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No funds were received in support of this work and no study-specific conflicts of interest exist with any of the authors. GMM has received travel support from Globus, Medtronic, NuVasive and Stryker. RMP has received travel support from NuVasive.

References

  1. 1.
    Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Howard JM, Bratcher KR, Carreon LY (2011) Does fusion status correlate with patient outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion? Spine 36:404–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee YP, Pattnaik T, Garfin SR (2013) Biologic considerations in XLIF. In: Goodrich JA, Volcan IJ (eds) Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF®), 2nd edn. Quality Medical Publishing Inc, St. Louis, pp 137–145Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 9:880–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibson S, McLeod I, Wardlaw D, Urbaniak S (2002) Allograft versus autograft in instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 27:1599–1603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kang J, An H, Hilibrand A, Yoon T, Kavanagh E, Boden S (2012) Grafton and local bone have comparable outcomes to iliac crest bone in instrumented single-level lumbar fusions. Spine 7:1083–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epstein NE (2009) Beta tricalcium phosphate: observation of use in 100 posterolateral lumbar instrumented fusions. Spine J 9:630–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Dickman CA, Zdeblick TA (2002) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2 with tapered interbody cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:337–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkus JK, Transfeldt EE, Kitchel SH, Watkins RG, Balderston RA (2002) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Spine 27:2396–2408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, Pryor PW, Hardacker JW, Carreon LY (2009) Clinical and radiographic analysis of an optimized rhBMP-2 formulation as an autograft replacement in posterolateral lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer CR, Cassilly R, Cantor W, Edusei E, Hammouri Q, Errico T (2013) A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures. Eur Spine J 22:1423–1435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dimitriou R, Mataliotakis GI, Angoules AG, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PV (2011) Complications following autologous bone graft harvesting from the iliac crest and using the RIA: a systematic review. Injury 42(Suppl 2):S3–S15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaccaro AR, Lawrence JP, Patel T, Katz LD, Anderson G, Fischgrund JS et al (2008) The safety and efficacy of OP-1 (rhBMP-7) as a replacement for iliac crest autograft in posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis: a long-term (>4 years) pivotal study. Spine 33:2850–2862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vaccaro AR, Whang PG, Patel T, Appannagari A, Patel M, Fischgrund JS (2008) The safety and efficacy of OP-1 (rhBMP-7) as a replacement for iliac crest autograft for posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis: minimum 4-year follow-up of a pilot study. Spine J 8:457–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boden SD, Zdeblick TA, Sandhu HS, Heim SE (2000) The use of rhBMP-2 in interbody fusion cages. Definitive evidence of osteoinduction in humans: a preliminary report. Spine 25:376–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fu R, Selph S, McDonagh M, Peterson K, Tiwari A, Chou R et al (2013) Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 158:890–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simmonds MC, Brown JV, Heirs MK, Higgins JPT, Mannion RJ, Rodgers MA et al (2013) Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of individual-participant data. Ann Intern Med 158:877–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benglis D, Wang MY, Levi AD (2008) A comprehensive review of the safety profile of bone morphogenetic protein in spine surgery. Neurosurgery 62:ONS423-431Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK (2011) A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J 11:471–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carragee EJ, Chu G, Rohtagi R, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK, Comer G et al (2013) Cancer risk after use of recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:1537–1545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woo EJ (2012) Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: adverse events reported to the manufacturer and user facility device experience database. Spine J 12:894–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beachler DC, Yanik EL, Martin BI, Pfeiffer RM, Mirza SK, Deyo RA et al (2016) Bone morphogenetic protein use and cancer risk among patients undergoing lumber arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1064–1072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Campbell MJ, Johnson JR, Puno RM, Djurasovic M et al (2008) The perioperative cost of Infuse bone graft in posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. Spine J 8:443–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dai LY, Jiang LS (2008) Single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion of lumbar spine with beta-tricalcium phosphate versus autograft: a prospective, randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Spine 33:1299–1304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thaler M, Lechner R, Gstottner M, Kobel C, Bach C (2013) The use of beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2:1173–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yuan H, Fernandes H, Habibovic P, De Boer J, Barradas AMC, de Ruiter A et al (2010) Osteoinductive ceramics as a synthetic alternative to autologous bone grafting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:13614–13619CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malham GM, Ellis NJ, Parker RM, Blecher CM, White R, Goss B et al (2016) Maintenance of segmental lordosis and disk height in stand-alone and instrumented extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). Clin Spine Surg. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182aa4c94 (In Press) PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boden SD, Kang J, Sandhu H, Heller JG (2002) Use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 to achieve posterolateral lumbar spine fusion in humans: a prospective, randomized clinical pilot trial: 2002 Volvo Award in clinical studies. Spine 27:2662–2673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trattner S, Pearson GDN, Chin C, Cody DD, Gupta R, Hess CP et al (2014) Standardization and optimization of CT protocols to achieve low dose. J Am Coll Radiol 11:271–278CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richards PJ, George J, Metelko M, Brown M (2010) Spine computed tomography doses and cancer induction. Spine 35:430–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams AL, Gornet MF, Burkus JK (2005) CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: current concepts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:2057–2066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing (2014), Private Health Insurance Prostheses List, Prostheses List—Part A. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/prostheses-list-pdf.htm. Accessed 11 Jan 2015
  33. 33.
    Youssef JA, McAfee PC, Patty CA, Raley E, DeBauche S, Shucosky E et al (2010) Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and review. Spine 5:S302–S311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Rodgers JA (2012) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of extreme lateral approach to interbody fusion with Beta-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite composite for lumbar degenerative conditions. Int J Spine Surg 6:24–28CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lykissas MG, Aichmair A, Sama AA, Hughes AP, Lebl DR, Cammisa FP et al (2014) Nerve injury and recovery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion with and without bone morphogenetic protein-2 augmentation: a cohort-controlled study. Spine J 14:217–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malham GM, Parker RM, Ellis NJ, Blecher CM, Chow FY, Claydon MH (2014) Anterior lumber interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: a prospective study of complications. J Neurosurg Spine 21:851–860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Malham GM, Giles GG, Milne RL, Blecher CM, Brazenor GA (2015) Bone morphogenetic proteins in spinal surgery: what is the fusion rate and do they cause cancer? Spine 40:1737–1742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mroz TE, Wang JC, Hashimoto R, Norvell DC (2010) Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine 35:S86–S104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vaidya R, Sethi A, Bartol S, Jacobson M, Coe C, Craig JG (2008) Complications in the use of rhBMP-2 in PEEK cages for interbody spinal fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:557–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lao L, Cohen JR, Lord EL, Buser Z, Wang JC (2016) Trends analysis of rhBMP in single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) in the United States. Eur Spine J 25:783–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rihn JA, Kirkpatrick K, Albert TJ (2010) Graft options in posterolateral and posterior interbody lumbar fusion. Spine 35:1629–1639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Webster TJ, Ergun C, Doremus RH, Siegel RW, Bizios R (2000) Specific proteins mediate enhanced osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res 51:475–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Woo KM, Chen VJ, Ma PX (2003) Nano-fibrous scaffolding architecture selectively enhances protein adsorption contributing to cell attachment. J Biomed Mater Res 67A:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Etminan M, Girardi FP, Khan SN, Cammisa FP Jr (2002) Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Orthop Clin North Am 33:381–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yamada T, Yoshii T, Sotome S, Yuasa M, Kato T, Arai Y et al (2012) 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:E174–E179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Malham GM, Parker RM, Goss B, Blecher CM (2015) Clinical results and limitations of indirect decompression in spinal stenosis with laterally implanted interbody cages: results from a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):S339–S345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pimenta L, Marchi L, Oliveira L, Coutinho E, Amaral R (2013) A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes between Stand-Alone Lateral Interbody Lumbar Fusion with either Silicate Calcium Phosphate or rh-BMP2. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 74:343–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Berjano P, Langella F, Damilano M, Pejrona M, Buric J, Ismael M et al (2015) Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):S369–S371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Greg Malham NeurosurgeonMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Neuroscience InstituteEpworth HospitalMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations