A systematic review and meta-analysis of fusion rate enhancements and bone graft options for spine surgery

Abstract

AbstractOur study aimed to evaluate differences in outcomes of patients submitted to spinal fusion using different grafts measuring the effectiveness of spinal fusion rates, pseudarthrosis rates, and adverse events. Applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, this systematic review and meta-analysis identified 64 eligible articles. The main inclusion criteria were adult patients that were submitted to spinal fusion, autologous iliac crest (AIC), allograft (ALG), alloplastic (ALP; hydroxyapatite, rhBMP-2, rhBMP-7, or the association between them), and local bone (LB), whether in addition to metallic implants or not, was applied. We made a comparison among those groups to evaluate the presence of differences in outcomes, such as fusion rate, hospital stay, follow-up extension (6, 12, 24, and 48 months), pseudarthrosis rate, and adverse events. Sixty-four studies were identified. LB presented significantly higher proportions of fusion rates (95.3% CI 89.7–98.7) compared to the AIC (88.6% CI 84.8–91.9), ALG (87.8% CI 80.8–93.4), and ALP (85.8% CI 75.7–93.5) study groups. Pseudarthrosis presented at a significantly lower pooled proportion of ALG studies (4.8% CI 0.1–15.7) compared to AIC (8.6% CI 4.2–14.2), ALP (7.1% CI 0.9–18.2), and LB (10.3% CI 1.8–24.5). ALP and AIC studies described significantly more cases of adverse events (80 events/404 patients and 860 events/2001 patients, respectively) compared to LB (20 events/311 patients) and ALG (73 events/459 patients). Most studies presented high risk-of-bias scores. Based on fusion rates and adverse events proportions, LB showed a superior trend among the graft cases we analyzed. However, our review revealed highly heterogeneous data and a need for more rigorous studies to better address and assist surgeons’ choices of the best spinal grafts.