An evaluation of biomaterials and osteobiologics for arthrodesis achievement in spine surgery

Osteobiologics and Value-Based Care: Challenges and Opportunities

BACKGROUND

Autologous bone grafts, sourced from the iliac crest, are the gold standard for bone substitution in spine surgery. However, harvesting autografts increases the risk of postoperative complications. Bone allografts are another popular source of graft material, but their use is rapidly surpassing their availability. There has been considerable interest in manufactured bone graft substitutes, commonly referred to as osteobiologics, which mimic the properties of autologous bone and may be osteoconductive, osteoinductive, osteogenic, or a combination.

OBJECTIVE

Osteobiologics have been developed to mimic the properties of autologous bone, but their high cost and variable effectiveness raise questions about their value. This article explores the challenges and opportunities associated with the use of osteobiologics used to aid in bone healing in spinal fusion surgery within a value-based care framework. Spinal fusion treatments such as bone morphogenetic proteins, platelet-rich plasma, autologous conditioned serum, demineralized bone matrix, biomaterial scaffolds, stem cells, and cellular bone matrices are compared.

SUMMARY

Bone morphogenetic proteins are highly effective but often associated with serious risks; platelet-rich plasma shows promising results but lacks standardization in research protocols. Autologous conditioned serum is inconclusive and cost-effective, while demineralized bone matrix has variable effectiveness and limited data to use in anterior spinal fusions. Biomaterial scaffolds have limited application in the anterior spine but demonstrate high efficacy when it comes to spinal fusion. Stem cells demonstrate improved postsurgical outcomes but have low yield from bone marrow and potential risks associated with genetic engineering and cell therapy. Cellular bone matrices show promising results and have high fusion rates, yet there is currently no US Food and Drug Adminstration requirement for preclinical or clinical data before commercial usage. Although osteobiologics have considerable potential, their high price and uncertain efficiency raise questions concerning their usefulness in spinal fusion surgery. To ensure better patient outcomes, extensive research is needed to explore their utilization within a value-based care framework.

Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Although several studies have reported successful fusion rates after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using allografts or dimerized bone matrix (DBM) instead of autografts, whether OLIF can achieve satisfactory solid fusion without the use of autografts remains unclear. This study investigated the real fusion rates after OLIF using allografts and DBM, which were evaluated using both dynamic radiographs and computed tomography scans.

METHODS

We enrolled 79 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive OLIF followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. All patients were treated with OLIF between L2 and L5 and underwent radiographic and clinical follow-ups at 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery. Radiographic assessment of fusion was performed using the modified BrantigaSteffee-Fraser (mBSF) scale, which was categorized as follows: grades I (radiographic pseudoarthrosis), II (indeterminate fusion), and III (solid radiographic fusion). Other radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated using the following parameters: vertebral slippage distance, disc height, subsidence, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Clinical outcomes demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS scores for back pain, leg pain, and ODI after surgery. Subsidence was present in 34 cases (35.4%) at 12 months postoperatively, which increased to 47.9% and reached 50.0% at 1.5 years and 2 years after surgery, respectively. The solid fusion rate after OLIF was 32.3% at 1 year, increased to 58.3% at 1.5 years, and reached 72.9% at 2 years. Radiographic pseudoarthrosis was 24.0% at 1 year, which decreased to 6.3% at 1.5 years and 3.1% at 2 years.

CONCLUSION

OLIF is a safe and effective surgical procedure for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. The mBSF scale, which simultaneously evaluates both dynamic angles and bone bridge formation, offers great reliability for the radiological assessment of fusion. Moreover, OLIF using allografts and DBM, which is performed on one or 2 levels at L2-5, can achieve satisfactory fusion rates within 2 years after surgery.

Recent Advances in Bioengineering Bone Revascularization Based on Composite Materials Comprising Hydroxyapatite

The natural healing process of bone is impaired in the presence of tumors, trauma, or inflammation, necessitating external assistance for bone regeneration. The limitations of autologous/allogeneic bone grafting are still being discovered as research progresses. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) is now a crucial component of treating bone injuries and actively works to promote vascularization, a crucial stage in bone repair. A biomaterial with hydroxyapatite (HA), which resembles the mineral makeup of invertebrate bones and teeth, has demonstrated high osteoconductivity, bioactivity, and biocompatibility. However, due to its brittleness and porosity, which restrict its application, scientists have been prompted to explore ways to improve its properties by mixing it with other materials, modifying its structural composition, improving fabrication techniques and growth factor loading, and co-cultivating bone regrowth cells to stimulate vascularization. This review scrutinizes the latest five-year research on HA composite studies aimed at amplifying vascularization in bone regeneration.

Biomechanical Comparison of Different Numbers and Configurations of Cross-Links in Long-Segment Spinal Fixation-An Experimental Study in a Porcine Model

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

Cross-links are a type of common clinical spinal instrumentation. However, the effects of the position and number of cross-links have never been investigated in long-segment spinal fixation, and the variables have not been optimized. We conducted an in vitro biomechanical study by using a porcine long-segment spinal model with 5 different crosslink configurations to determine the optimal construct for clinical practice.

METHODS

Five modalities with paired segmental screws from T15-L5 were tested in 20 porcine spines. The spines without cross-links composed the control group, Group A; those with a single cross-link from L2-3 composed Group B; those with 2 cross-links from L1-2 and L3-4 composed Group C; those with 2 cross-links from T15-L1 and L4-5 composed Group D; and those with 3 cross-links from T15-L1, L2-3 and L4-5 composed Group E. Spinal stiffnesses in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were compared among 5 different cross-link configurations in 5-level porcine spinal units.

RESULTS

Flexional, extensional and lateral bending stiffnesses did not significantly change with an increasing number of cross-links or positions in the construct. Axial stiffness was significantly increased with 2 cross-links compared to one (P < 0.05) and with placement more distant from the center of the long spinal fixation construct (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Two cross-links individually placed proximal and distal from the center of a construct is an optimal and efficient configuration to achieve biomechanical stability in non-rigid lumbar spines undergoing long-level fixation.

Use of graft materials and biologics in spine deformity surgery: a state-of-the-art review

PURPOSE

The aim of the current review is to summarize the current evidence on graft materials used in fusion procedures for spinal deformity corrections.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant published observational studies and clinical trials using osteobiologics and biomaterials in spinal deformity surgery.

RESULTS

The use of autograft in deformity correction surgeries has been reported in a limited number of studies, with the harvest sites including iliac crest, ribs, and local bone. Various allografts and biologics have been used in the treatment of spinal deformities including idiopathic and degenerative scoliosis, either as stand alone or in combination with autograft. Limited number of studies reported no differences in fusion rates or outcomes. Use of rh-BMP2 in anterior, posterior or front/back approaches showed higher fusion rates than other graft materials in patients with spinal deformities. Due to the limited number of quality studies included in the review, as well as alternative factors, such as costs, availability, and surgeon expertise/preference, no definitive conclusion or recommendations can be made as to the ideal graft choice in spinal deformity surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Most commonly used grafts included autograft, allograft and rh-BMP2, with new biologics and biomaterials constantly emerging in the market. Limited number of high-quality comparative studies and heterogeneity in study design prevented direct comparisons that can lead to meaningful recommendations. Further studies are needed to prove superiority of any single graft material and/or biologic that is also cost-effective and safe.

Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review

Objective

With the advances in biological technologies over the past 20 years, a number of new therapies to promote bone healing have been introduced. Particularly in the spinal surgery field, more unprecedented biological therapeutics become available to enhance spinal fusion success rate along with advanced instrumentation approaches. Yet surgeons may not have been well informed about their safety and efficacy profiles in order to improve clinical practices. Therefore there is a need to summarize the evidence and bring the latest progress to surgeons for better clinical services for patients.

Methods

We comprehensively reviewed the literatures in regard to the biological therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion published in the last two decades.

Results

Autograft bone is still the gold standard for bone grafting in spinal fusion surgery due to its good osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic abilities. Accumulating evidence suggests that adding rhBMPs in combination with autograft effectively promotes the fusion rate and improves surgical outcomes. However, the stimulating effect on spinal fusion of other growth factors, including PDGF, VEGF, TGF-beta, and FGF, is not convincing, while Nell-1 and activin A exhibited preliminary efficacy. In terms of systemic therapeutic approaches, the osteoporosis drug Teriparatide has played a positive role in promoting bone healing after spinal surgery, while new medications such as denosumab and sclerostin antibodies still need further validation. Currently, other treatment, such as controlled-release formulations and carriers, are being studied for better releasing profile and the administration convenience of the active ingredients.

Conclusion

As the world's population continues to grow older, the number of spinal fusion cases grows substantially due to increased surgical needs for spinal degenerative disease (SDD). Critical advancements in biological therapeutics that promote spinal fusion have brought better clinical outcomes to patients lately. With the accumulation of higher-level evidence, the safety and efficacy of present and emerging products are becoming more evident. These emerging therapeutics will shift the landscape of perioperative therapy for the enhancement of spinal fusion.

Endo-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the curative efficacy by comparing perioperative characteristics and 1.5-year observational outcomes in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis between traditional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and optimized Endoscopic TLIF techniques.

METHODS

The study was a single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing two different treatment approaches for 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis. 102 patients treated by MIS-TLIF (48 cases) or Endo-TLIF (54 cases) were included from March 2018 to April 2019. Perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Degree of slip were measured, and fusion rates were determined at 18 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The Endo-TLIF group had similar return to work time and rate. Blood loss, left bed time, analgesic ratio were significantly less in Endo-TLIF group. The Endo-TLIF group had a significantly longer operative time. Significant postoperative reduction in %slip was showed in both groups. The VAS and ODI improved significantly in both groups after surgery. Significant decreases in low-back pain in Endo-TLIF group were found at postoperative day 1 and 3 months. The fusion rate in the two groups was similar.

CONCLUSION

Endo-TLIF surgery with a C-shaped working tube and a visualization system may be regarded as an efficient alternative surgery for 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis. It is a safe and minimally invasive way to perform this surgery and has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1800015197, 13 March 2018.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Registered 13 March 2018. http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=25865.

The Impact of Osteobiologic Subtype Selection on Perioperative Complications and Hospital-Reported Charges in Single- and Multi-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

Over the last several decades, various osteobiologics including allograft, synthetics, and growth factors have been used for lumbar spinal fusion surgery. However, the data on these osteobiologic products remain controversial with conflicting evidence in the literature. This study evaluates the influence of osteobiologic type selection on perioperative complications and hospital-reported charges in single-level and multilevel lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Using the 2016 and 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 125,143 patients who received lumbar fusion with either autologous tissue substitute, nonautologous tissue substitute, or synthetic substitute. This cohort was split into single-level and multilevel fusion procedures, and one-to-one age and sex propensity score matching was implemented. This resulted in cohorts each consisting of 1967 patients for single-level fusion, and cohorts each consisting of 1657 patients for multilevel fusion. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons of means.

RESULTS

Autologous single-level fusion resulted in significantly more postoperative pain at 30-, 90-, and 180-day follow-up compared to fusion with nonautologous graft (P < .05). Multilevel fusion with autologous graft had higher rates of acute postsurgical anemia compared with synthetic (P = .021) and nonautologous (P = .016) alternatives, and less postsurgical infection when compared with nonautologous fusion (P = .0020). In addition, procedures using autologous osteobiologics were associated with significantly more neurological complications at 30 days (P = .049) and 90 days (P = .048) for multi-level fusion and at 30 days (P = .044) for single-level fusion compared with the nonautologous group. Lastly, for both cohorts, the total accrued inpatient hospital charges during admission for patients receiving nonautologous grafts were the most expensive and those for patients receiving autologous grafts were the least expensive.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences were found between the groups with respect to rates of complications, including infection, postoperative pain, and neurologic injury. Furthermore, the hospital-reported charges of each procedure varied significantly. As the field of biologics continues to expand, it is important to continually evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of these novel materials and techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With increased utilization of osteobiologics and spinal fusion being a common procedure, longitudinal data on readmissions, and post-operative complications are critical in guiding evidence-based practice.

Trends in lumbar spinal fusion-a literature review

Over the past several decades, there has been an upward trend in the total number of spinal fusion procedures worldwide. Advanced spinal fusion techniques with or without internal fixation, additional innovations in surgical approaches, innovative implants including a wide variety of interbody devices, and new alternatives in bone grafting materials are some reasons for the increasing number of spine fusion procedures. Moreover, the indications for spinal fusion have broadened over time. Initially developed for the treatment of instability and deformity due to tuberculosis, scoliosis, and traumatic injury, spinal fusion surgery has now a wide range of indications like spondylolisthesis, congenital or degenerative deformity, spinal tumors, and pseudarthrosis, with degenerative disorders as the most common indication. This review emphasizes current lumbar fusion techniques and their development in the past decades.