Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Iliac crest bone graft versus cell-based grafts to augment spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Abstract

Introduction

Despite successful fusion rates with iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), donor-site morbidity and increased operating time remain a considerable limitation and drive the search for alternatives. In this systematic review, grafts with additional cellular supplementation were compared with ICBG for spinal arthrodesis. We compared safety, efficacy and long-term outcomes, thus providing the current and relevant evidence for orthopaedic surgeons to make informed choices regarding this rapidly developing field.

Methods

An electronic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by two independent reviewers for articles published up to 1st March 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial. Cellular allografts were not included. The following data were extracted: Number of patients, type of graft, fusion assessment method, follow-up duration, fusion rates, clinical outcomes and complications. The methodological quality of evidence (MQOE) was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool and Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies (ROBINS) tool developed by Cochrane for evaluating bias in randomised and non-randomised studies.

Results

Ten studies fulfiled the inclusion criteria, including 465 patients. The mean number of patients per study was 43.8 (std dev. 28.81, range 12–100). Two studies demonstrated cell-based therapy to be significantly more successful in terms of fusion rates compared to ICBG. However, the remaining eight demonstrated equivocal results. No study found that cell-based therapy was inferior. No difference was seen between the two groups in three studies who focused on degenerative cohorts. No difference in functional outcome scores was seen between the groups. A number of different preparation techniques for cell-based grafts were used throughout the studies.

Conclusion

Cell-based therapy offers a promising alternative to ICBG in spinal fusion surgery, which could help reduce the associated morbidity to patients. This review found that cell-based therapy is non-inferior to iliac crest bone graft and may offer patients an alternative treatment option with fewer complications and reduced post-operative pain. However, the literature to date is limited by heterogeneity of the cell preparation and grafting process. Future research with a unified approach to the cell preparation process is required to fully delineate the potential advantages of this technology.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1(1):2

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jancuska JM, Hutzler L, Protopsaltis TS, Bendo JA, Bosco J (2016) Utilization of lumbar spinal fusion in New York State: trends and disparities. Spine 41(19):1508–1514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Souslian FG, Patel PD (2021) Review and analysis of modern lumbar spinal fusion techniques. Br J Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2021.1881041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahlmann E, Patzakis M, Roidis N, Shepherd L, Holtom P (2002) Comparison of anterior and posterior iliac crest bone grafts in terms of harvest-site morbidity and functional outcomes. JBJS 84(5):716–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Myeroff C, Archdeacon M (2011) Autogenous bone graft: donor sites and techniques. JBJS 93(23):2227–2236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Robinson BT, Metcalfe D, Cuff AV et al (2018) Surgical techniques for autologous bone harvesting from the iliac crest in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018(4):CD011783

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Khashan M, Inoue S, Berven SH (2013) Cell-based therapies as compared to autologous bone grafts for spinal arthrodesis. Spine 38(21):1885–1891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnstone B, Ryaby J, Zhang N et al (2020) Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion. Bone Jt 102:47–47

    Google Scholar 

  9. Robbins MA, Haudenschild DR, Wegner AM, Klineberg EO (2017) Stem cells in spinal fusion. Global spine journal 7(8):801–810

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Vaccaro AR, Stubbs HA, Block JE (2007) Demineralized bone matrix composite grafting for posterolateral spinal fusion. Orthopedics 30(7):567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hart R, Komzák M, Okál F, Náhlík D, Jajtner P, Puskeiler M (2014) Allograft alone versus allograft with bone marrow concentrate for the healing of the instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine J 14(7):1318–1324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez-Tartiere P, de Frutos AG, Ubierna MT et al (2019) P136. Randomized, prospective clinical trial to evaluate efficacy and safety in lumbar fusion surgery of implantation of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal cells expanded ex vivo and combined with allogeneic bone tissue, compared with autologous iliac crest graft; part II: clinical findings. Spine J 19(9):S220–S221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kitchel SH (2006) A preliminary comparative study of radiographic results using mineralized collagen and bone marrow aspirate versus autologous bone in the same patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine J 6(4):405–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Niu C-C, Tsai T-T, Fu T-S, Lai P-L, Chen L-H, Chen W-J (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. LWW

  15. Moro-Barrero L, Acebal-Cortina G, Suárez-Suárez M, Pérez-Redondo J, Murcia-Mazón A, López-Muñiz A (2007) Radiographic analysis of fusion mass using fresh autologous bone marrow with ceramic composites as an alternative to autologous bone graft. Clin Spine Surg 20(6):409–415

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Dryer RF, Pettine KA, Ghiselli G, Bae HW (2013) Study comparing mesenchymal precursor cells and autogenous iliac crest bone graft for lumbar interbody fusion in a randomized controlled phase 2 FDA clinical trial. Spine J 13(9):S30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chotivichit A, Ruangchainikom M, Tongdee T, Wongkajornsilp A, Permpikul P, Korwutthikulrangsri E (2016) A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing posterolateral lumbar fusion with and without bone marrow concentrate augmentation in single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Med Assoc Thail 99(10):1073–1079

    Google Scholar 

  20. Neen D, Noyes D, Shaw M, Gwilym S, Fairlie N, Birch N (2006) Healos and bone marrow aspirate used for lumbar spine fusion: a case controlled study comparing healos with autograft. Spine 31(18):E636–E640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bansal S, Chauhan V, Sharma S, Maheshwari R, Juyal A, Raghuvanshi S (2009) Evaluation of hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate mixed with bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute for posterolateral spinal fusion. Indian J Orthop 43(3):234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS (1995) Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A Stat Eval Spine 20(9):1055–1060

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Merritt AL, Spinnicke A, Pettigrew K, Alamin TF (2010) Gluteal-sparing approach for posterior iliac crest bone graft: description of a new technique and assessment of morbidity in ninety-two patients after spinal fusion. Spine 35(14):1396–1400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhu J-F, Xu W-X, Hu Q, Wu T-Q, Liu H (2020) Iliac bone harvesting techniques for bone reconstruction: comparative study between tricortical bone harvesting versus trapdoor technique. Ther Clin Risk Manag 16:559

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Dawson J, Kiner D, Warren Gardner I, Swafford R, Nowotarski PJ (2014) The reamer–irrigator–aspirator as a device for harvesting bone graft compared with iliac crest bone graft: union rates and complications. J Orthop Trauma 28(10):584–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lehr AM, Oner FC, Hoebink EA et al (2019) Patients cannot reliably distinguish the iliac crest bone graft donor site from the contralateral side after lumbar spine fusion: a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Spine 44(8):527–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Snavely JE, Mercer RW, Stewart G (2019) Harvest of Iliac crest autograft not associated with localized pain. Int J Spine Surg 13(3):275–282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Sheha ED, Meredith DS, Shifflett GD et al (2018) Postoperative pain following posterior iliac crest bone graft harvesting in spine surgery: a prospective, randomized trial. Spine J 18(6):986–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Edwards R, Gibson J, Mungin-Jenkins E, Pickford R, Lucas JD, Jones GD (2022) A preoperative spinal education intervention for spinal fusion surgery designed using the rehabilitation treatment specification system is safe and could reduce hospital length of stay, normalize expectations, and reduce anxiety: a prospective cohort study. Bone Jt Open 3(2):135

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sipp D, Robey PG, Turner L (2018) Clear up this stem-cell mess. Nature Publishing Group, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. van der Stok J, Hartholt K, Schoenmakers D, Arts J (2017) The available evidence on demineralised bone matrix in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. Bone Jt Res 6(7):423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ruan T, Naveed M, Vien H (2023) Case report: tuberculosis recall on bone graft patient. North Am Spine Soc J 15:100241

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fu R, Selph S, McDonagh M 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(12):890–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jacobsen MK, Andresen AK, Jespersen AB et al (2020) Randomized double blind clinical trial of ABM/P-15 versus allograft in noninstrumented lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J 20(5):677–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Arnold PM, Sasso RC, Janssen ME et al (2018) i-Factor™ bone graft versus autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 2-year follow-up of the randomized single-blinded food and drug administration investigational device exemption study. Neurosurgery 83(3):377–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gibbons D, Welch-Phillips A, Ahern DP, Butler JS (2020) Advantages and design of PROMIS questionnaires. Clin Spine Surg 33(10):408–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ambrosi TH, Longaker MT, Chan CK (2019) A revised perspective of skeletal stem cell biology. Front Cell Dev Biol 7:189

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. de Frutos AG, González-Tartière P, Bonet RC et al (2020) Randomized clinical trial: expanded autologous bone marrow mesenchymal cells combined with allogeneic bone tissue, compared with autologous iliac crest graft in lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J 20(12):1899–1910

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Aoife Gordon and Fiona Newsome have equally contributed to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    Aoife Gordon, Fiona Newsome, Daniel P. Ahern, Jake M. McDonnell, Grainne Cunniffe & Joseph S. Butler

  2. School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Aoife Gordon, Fiona Newsome, Daniel P. Ahern & Joseph S. Butler

  3. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    Daniel P. Ahern

Authors
  1. Aoife Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fiona Newsome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel P. Ahern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jake M. McDonnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Grainne Cunniffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joseph S. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel P. Ahern.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gordon, A., Newsome, F., Ahern, D.P. et al. Iliac crest bone graft versus cell-based grafts to augment spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 33, 253–263 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07941-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07941-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation