Advertisement

Radiographic and functional outcomes of bisphosphonate use in lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

  • Nickolas Fretes
  • Evan Vellios
  • Akshay Sharma
  • Remi M. AjiboyeEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Purpose

To date, there are conflicting reports with no consensus on the influence of bisphosphonates on lumbar fusion. The goal of this study was to compare the radiographic and functional outcomes of patients that had lumbar fusion with and without bisphosphonates.

Methods

A systematic search of multiple medical reference databases was conducted for studies comparing bisphosphonate use to controls following spinal fusion. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Radiographic outcome measures included fusion rates and risk of screw loosening, cage subsidence and vertebral fracture. Functional outcomes measures included Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale score for back and leg pain.

Results

Bisphosphonate use was statistically suggestive of a higher fusion rate compared to controls (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.87–5.56, p = 0.09). There was no difference in screw loosening rates between the bisphosphonate group and controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14–1.48, p = 0.19). However, bisphosphonate use was associated with decreased odds of cage subsidence and vertebral fractures compared to controls (cage subsidence: OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11–0.75, p = 0.01; vertebral fracture: OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.48, p = 0.0007).

Conclusion

Bisphosphonate use does not appear to impair successful lumbar fusion compared to controls. Additionally, bisphosphonate use was associated with decreased odds of cage subsidence and vertebral fractures compared to controls that had lumbar fusion.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Bisphosphonate Osteoporosis Fusion Screw loosening Cage subsidence Vertebral fracture 

Notes

Funding

No funds were received in support of this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6090_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (175 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PPTX 175 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Okuda S, Oda T, Miyauchi A, Haku T, Yamamoto T, Iwasaki M (2006) Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg 88:2714–2720.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Etebar S, Cahill DW (1999) Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg 90:163–169Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morris CD, Einhorn TA (2005) Bisphosphonates in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Jt Surg 87:1609–1618.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.03032 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schimmer RC, Bauss F (2003) Effect of daily and intermittent use of ibandronate on bone mass and bone turnover in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of three phase II studies. Clin Ther 25:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ohtori S, Inoue G, Orita S, Yamauchi K, Eguchi Y, Ochiai N, Kishida S, Kuniyoshi K, Aoki Y, Nakamura J, Ishikawa T, Miyagi M, Kamoda H, Suzuki M, Kubota G, Sakuma Y, Oikawa Y, Inage K, Sainoh T, Takaso M, Toyone T, Takahashi K (2013) Comparison of teriparatide and bisphosphonate treatment to reduce pedicle screw loosening after lumbar spinal fusion surgery in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis from a bone quality perspective. Spine 38:E487–E492.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828826dd CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen F, Dai Z, Kang Y, Lv G, Keller ET, Jiang Y (2016) Effects of zoledronic acid on bone fusion in osteoporotic patients after lumbar fusion. Osteoporos Int 27:1469–1476.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3398-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagahama K, Kanayama M, Togawa D, Hashimoto T, Minami A (2011) Does alendronate disturb the healing process of posterior lumbar interbody fusion? A prospective randomized trial. J Neurosurg Spine 14:500–507.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.11.SPINE10245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park YS, Kim HS, Baek SW, Kong DY, Ryu JA (2013) The effect of zoledronic acid on the volume of the fusion-mass in lumbar spinal fusion. Clin Orthop Surg 5:292–297.  https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tu CW, Huang KF, Hsu HT, Li HY, Yang SS, Chen YC (2014) Zoledronic acid infusion for lumbar interbody fusion in osteoporosis. J Surg Res 192:112–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.05.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang RC, Khan SN, Sandhu HS, Metzl JA, Cammisa FP Jr, Zheng F, Sama AA, Lane JM (2005) Alendronate inhibits spine fusion in a rat model. Spine 30:2516–2522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xue Q, Li H, Zou X, Bunger M, Egund N, Lind M, Christensen FB, Bunger C (2005) The influence of alendronate treatment and bone graft volume on posterior lateral spine fusion in a porcine model. Spine 30:1116–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lehman RA Jr, Kuklo TR, Freedman BA, Cowart JR, Mense MG, Riew KD (2004) The effect of alendronate sodium on spinal fusion: a rabbit model. Spine J 4:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakao S, Minamide A, Kawakami M, Boden SD, Yoshida M (2011) The influence of alendronate on spine fusion in an osteoporotic animal model. Spine 36:1446–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f49c47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright JG, Einhorn TA, Heckman JD (2005) Grades of recommendation. J Bone Jt Surg 87:1909–1910.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.8709.edit CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2009) 2009 Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 34:1929–1941.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeLong WB, Polissar N, Neradilek B (2008) Timing of surgery in cauda equina syndrome with urinary retention: meta-analysis of observational studies. J Neurosurg Spine 8:305–320.  https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI/2008/8/4/305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine 37:67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stone MA, Jakoi AM, Iorio JA, Pham MH, Patel NN, Hsieh PC, Liu JC, Acosta FL, Hah R, Wang JC (2017) Bisphosphonate's and intermittent parathyroid hormone's effect on human spinal fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Asian Spine J 11:484–493.  https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.3.484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hirsch BP, Unnanuntana A, Cunningham ME, Lane JM (2013) The effect of therapies for osteoporosis on spine fusion: a systematic review. Spine J 13:190–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.03.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lubelski D, Choma TJ, Steinmetz MP, Harrop JS, Mroz TE (2015) Perioperative medical management of spine surgery patients with osteoporosis. Neurosurgery 77(Suppl 4):S92–S97.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Babat LB, McLain R, Milks R, Ferrara L, Sohn MJ (2005) The effects of the antiresorptive agents calcitonin and pamidronate on spine fusion in a rabbit model. Spine J 5:542–547.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takahata M, Ito M, Abe Y, Abumi K, Minami A (2008) The effect of anti-resorptive therapies on bone graft healing in an ovariectomized rat spinal arthrodesis model. Bone 43:1057–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2008.08.124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bransford R, Goergens E, Briody J, Amanat N, Cree A, Little D (2007) Effect of zoledronic acid in an L6–L7 rabbit spine fusion model. Eur Spine J 16:557–562.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0212-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grey A, Reid IR (2006) Differences between the bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2:77–86Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen LX, Zhou ZR, Li YL, Ning GZ, Zhang TS, Zhang D, Feng SQ (2015) Comparison of bone mineral density in lumbar spine and fracture rate among eight drugs in treatments of osteoporosis in men: a network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0128032.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paggiosi MA, Peel N, McCloskey E, Walsh JS, Eastell R (2014) Comparison of the effects of three oral bisphosphonate therapies on the peripheral skeleton in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the TRIO study. Osteoporos Int 25:2729–2741.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2817-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Migliore A, Broccoli S, Massafra U, Cassol M, Frediani B (2013) Ranking antireabsorptive agents to prevent vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis by mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17:658–667Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCLA Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Case Western Reserve School of MedicineClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Sports and Spine OrthopedicsTorranceUSA
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford Medical CenterRedwood CityUSA

Personalised recommendations