• Spine · May 2005

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of Healos/bone marrow to INFUSE(rhBMP-2/ACS) with a collagen-ceramic sponge bulking agent as graft substitutes for lumbar spine fusion.

    • Chaiwat Kraiwattanapong, Scott D Boden, John Louis-Ugbo, Emad Attallah, Bryan Barnes, and William C Hutton.
    • Emory Spine Center, Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, GA, USA.
    • Spine. 2005 May 1;30(9):1001-7; discussion 1007.

    Study DesignA rabbit lumbar intertransverse process arthrodesis model was used to evaluate the efficacy of two different bone substitute materials: 1) collagen-hydroxyapatite sponge (Healos bone void filler) combined with heparinized bone marrow; and 2) recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 delivered in a collagen sponge (INFUSE Bone Graft) wrapped around an additional collagen-ceramic sponge (Mastergraft Matrix) as a "bulking agent."ObjectivesTo compare the relative efficacy of two different bone graft substitutes to achieve posterolateral lumbar spine fusion in rabbits.Summary Of Background DataAutogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard graft material for spine fusion. Complications with its use, however, may occur in as many as 30% of patients. A variety of bone substitutes have been used for spine fusion, but there are few direct comparison experiments to determine the relative efficacy of any two alternatives.MethodsAdult New Zealand white rabbits (n = 24) were divided into two groups and underwent bilateral posterolateral intertransverse process spine arthrodesis at L5-L6. The fusions were augmented by different bone substitute materials as follows: Group 1 (n = 12) received 3 mL of collagen-hydroxyapatite sponge (Healos bone void filler) (10 x 30 x 5 mm, two per side) with 3.0 mL of heparinized bone marrow on each side of the spine. (ratio 1:1); Group 2 (n = 12) received 1.5 mL of rhBMP-2 (0.43 mg/mL solution) on a Type 1 collagen sponge (INFUSE Bone Graft) wrapped around an additional 1.5 mL collagen-ceramic (15%HA/85%TCP) sponge (Mastergraft Matrix) as a bulking agent to provide 3 mL of graft on each side of the spine. Bone marrow was aspirated from posterior iliac crest, and 1 mL of bone marrow was sent to count number of nucleated cells. The rabbits were killed after 8 weeks; the spines were evaluated by manual palpation, radiographs (plain radiograph and CT scan), tensile mechanical testing, and nondecalcified histology.ResultsThe bone marrow had average of total nucleated cell count 9 x 10 cells. All rabbits (100%) in Group 2 (INFUSE/Mastergraft Matrix) achieved solid spinal fusions by manual palpation and radiographs, whereas solid spinal fusion was not achieved by manual palpation and radiographs in any of the rabbits treated with Healos combined with heparinized bone marrow (Group 1). The plain radiograph and CT scans of Group 1 showed some minimal new bone formation near the transverse processes, but none of these rabbits formed a continuous fusion mass. In contrast, all of plain radiographs and CT scans in Group 2 showed continuous fusion mass and complete graft incorporation between transverse processes bilaterally. Biomechanically, the relative strength and relative stiffness values of L5-L6 (fusion segment) in Group 2 were statistically significant greater than L5-L6 in Group 1 (P < 0.001). Histologic sections confirmed the palpation and radiographic results.ConclusionFrom the manual palpation, radiographic and biomechanical assessment of fusion, the results in this study showed that INFUSE (rhBMP-2/collagen sponge) consistently produced spine fusion when wrapped around a collagen-ceramic sponge bulking agent (Mastergraft Matrix). Meanwhile, Healos was ineffective as a bone graft material when combined with heparinized autogenous bone marrow.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.