Global spine journal · 2017
Allograft Versus Demineralized Bone Matrix in Instrumented and Noninstrumented Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buser Zorica, Brodke Darrel S, Youssef Jim A, Rometsch Elke, Park Jong-Beom, Yoon S Tim, Wang Jeffrey C, Meisel Hans-Joerg
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to determine the fusion efficacy of allograft and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) in lumbar instrumented and noninstrumented fusion procedures for degenerative lumbar disorders.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases. To be considered, publications had to meet 4 criteria: patients were treated for a degenerative lumbar disorder, a minimum group size of 10 patients, use of allograft or DBM, and at least a 2-year follow-up. Data on the study population, follow-up time, surgery type, grafting material, fusion rates, and its definition were collected.
RESULTS: The search yielded 692 citations with 17 studies meeting the criteria including 4 retrospective and 13 prospective studies. Six studies used DBM and 11 employed allograft alone or in the combination with autograft. For the allograft, fusion rates ranged from 58% to 68% for noninstrumented and from 68% to 98% for instrumented procedures. For DBM, fusion rates were 83% for noninstrumented and between 60% and 100% for instrumented lumbar fusion procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Both allograft and DBM appeared to provide similar fusion rates in instrumented fusions. On the other hand, in noninstrumented procedures DBM was superior. However, a large variation in the type of surgery, outcomes collection, lack of control groups, and follow-up time prevented any significant conclusions. Thus, studies comparing the performance of allograft and DBM to adequate controls in large, well-defined patient populations and with a sufficient follow-up time are needed to establish the efficacy of these materials as adjuncts to fusion.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to determine the fusion efficacy of allograft and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) in lumbar instrumented and noninstrumented fusion procedures for degenerative lumbar disorders.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases. To be considered, publications had to meet 4 criteria: patients were treated for a degenerative lumbar disorder, a minimum group size of 10 patients, use of allograft or DBM, and at least a 2-year follow-up. Data on the study population, follow-up time, surgery type, grafting material, fusion rates, and its definition were collected.
RESULTS: The search yielded 692 citations with 17 studies meeting the criteria including 4 retrospective and 13 prospective studies. Six studies used DBM and 11 employed allograft alone or in the combination with autograft. For the allograft, fusion rates ranged from 58% to 68% for noninstrumented and from 68% to 98% for instrumented procedures. For DBM, fusion rates were 83% for noninstrumented and between 60% and 100% for instrumented lumbar fusion procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Both allograft and DBM appeared to provide similar fusion rates in instrumented fusions. On the other hand, in noninstrumented procedures DBM was superior. However, a large variation in the type of surgery, outcomes collection, lack of control groups, and follow-up time prevented any significant conclusions. Thus, studies comparing the performance of allograft and DBM to adequate controls in large, well-defined patient populations and with a sufficient follow-up time are needed to establish the efficacy of these materials as adjuncts to fusion.