Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Cellular Allogeneic Bone Matrix in the Treatment of Symptomatic Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease and Lumbar Spinal Instability

Overview

Journal J Spine Surg

Date 2021 Nov 4

PMID 34734135

Citations 1

Authors

William C Tally

H Thomas Temple

J Kenneth Burkus

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Cellular allogeneic bone grafts are used as a biologic adjuvant in lumbar spinal fusions. The clinical use of a minimally invasive extreme lateral approach to the lumbar spine has been widely adopted; however, there are few clinical studies that have documented the clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with the use of cellular allografts as an adjunct to fusion in this advanced surgical approach.

Methods: A consecutive series of 67 patients (34 males and 33 females) with a mean age of 66.8 years (26-85 years) who underwent single- or multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with supplemental posterior segmental spinal fixation using a cellular allogeneic bone matrix as the only bone graft material was retrospectively reviewed by a single surgeon. Patients' preoperative and 3- and 12-month postoperative data were studied. All patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months. Standardized clinical outcome measures-36-Item Short Form Surgery (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain scores-were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. An average of 2.25 levels was treated per patient (151 total levels). Fusion status was assessed by dynamic radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans. The statistical method used to identify the signiﬁcance of the observed changes in clinical outcomes was the paired 2-sided -tests. Significance was ascribed to P values <0.05.

Results: Fusion was achieved at 142 levels (142/151; 94%). Eight levels (8/151; 5.3%) showed partial fusions and one patient (single level) had no fusion. In the group of patients with fusions, the mean back and leg pain scores showed improvement from preoperative scores at both 3 and 12 months (P<0.001). Functional outcomes showed similar clinical success in both in SF-36 and ODI scores.

Conclusions: The use of a cellular allogeneic bone matrix provided osteoconductive and osteoinductive components for successful spine fusions and was associated with statistically significant improvement in SF-36, VAS, and ODI scores.

Citing Articles

Cellular Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery - Are They Worth the Risk: A Systematic Review.

Lambrechts M, Issa T, Mazmudar A, Lee Y, Toci G, DAntonio N Global Spine J. 2023; 14(3):1070-1081.

PMID: 37773001 PMC: 11192114. DOI: 10.1177/21925682231205099.

References

Martin W, Sicard R, Namin S, Ganey T . Methods of Cryoprotectant Preservation: Allogeneic Cellular Bone Grafts and Potential Effects. Biomed Res Int. 2019; 2019:5025398. PMC: 6817928. DOI: 10.1155/2019/5025398. View

McHorney C, Ware Jr J, Lu J, Sherbourne C . The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994; 32(1):40-66. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004. View

Li H, Zhang R, Shen C . Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20(1):582. PMC: 6894220. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2972-7. View

Lund T, Oxland T, Jost B, Cripton P, Grassmann S, Etter C . Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80(2):351-9. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b2.7693. View

Malham G, Ellis N, Parker R, Blecher C, White R, Goss B . Maintenance of Segmental Lordosis and Disk Height in Stand-alone and Instrumented Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF). Clin Spine Surg. 2017; 30(2):E90-E98. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182aa4c94. View

Carlson B, Saville P, Dowdell J, Goto R, Vaishnav A, Gang C . Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Spine J. 2018; 19(5):951-958. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.10.017. View

Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, OBrien J . The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980; 66(8):271-3. View

Tessitore E, Molliqaj G, Schaller K, Gautschi O . Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): A single-center clinical and radiological follow-up study of 20 patients. J Clin Neurosci. 2016; 36:76-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.10.001. View

Keorochana G, Setrkraising K, Woratanarat P, Arirachakaran A, Kongtharvonskul J . Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 2016; 41(3):755-770. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-016-0806-8. View

10.

Alimi M, Hofstetter C, Cong G, Tsiouris A, James A, Paulo D . Radiological and clinical outcomes following extreme lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 20(6):623-35. DOI: 10.3171/2014.1.SPINE13569. View

11.

Malinin T, Carpenter E, Temple H . Particulate bone allograft incorporation in regeneration of osseous defects; importance of particle sizes. Open Orthop J. 2009; 1:19-24. PMC: 2684706. DOI: 10.2174/1874325000701010019. View

12.

Tally W, Temple H, Subhawong T, Ganey T . Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Viable Allograft: 75 Consecutive Cases at 12-Month Follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 12(1):76-84. PMC: 6162041. DOI: 10.14444/5013. View

13.

Kettler A, Wilke H, Dietl R, Krammer M, Lumenta C, Claes L . Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. J Neurosurg. 2000; 92(1 Suppl):87-92. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2000.92.1.0087. View

14.

Seo D, Kim M, Roh S, Jeon S . Morphological analysis of interbody fusion following posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages using computed tomography. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(34):e7816. PMC: 5572007. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007816. View

15.

Nomoto E, Fogel G, Rasouli A, Bundy J, Turner A . Biomechanical Analysis of Cortical Versus Pedicle Screw Fixation Stability in TLIF, PLIF, and XLIF Applications. Global Spine J. 2019; 9(2):162-168. PMC: 6448199. DOI: 10.1177/2192568218779991. View

16.

Gao Y, Li J, Cui H, Zhang F, Sun Y, Li Z . Comparison of intervertebral fusion rates of different bone graft materials in extreme lateral interbody fusion. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(44):e17685. PMC: 6946436. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017685. View

17.

LoGuidice A, Houlihan A, Deans R . Multipotent adult progenitor cells on an allograft scaffold facilitate the bone repair process. J Tissue Eng. 2016; 7:2041731416656148. PMC: 4959303. DOI: 10.1177/2041731416656148. View

18.

Kerr 3rd E, Jawahar A, Wooten T, Kay S, Cavanaugh D, Nunley P . The use of osteo-conductive stem-cells allograft in lumbar interbody fusion procedures: an alternative to recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2012; 20(3):193-7. View

19.

Lee D, Kim J . A comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either a cellular bone allograft containing multipotent adult progenitor cells or recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017; 12(1):126. PMC: 5574155. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-017-0618-8. View

20.

Schwartz C, Martha J, Kowalski P, Wang D, Bode R, Li L . Prospective evaluation of chronic pain associated with posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft harvest and its effect on postoperative outcome. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7:49. PMC: 2693524. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-49. View