Use of Autologous Stem Cells in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review of Current Clinical Evidence

Author:

Buser Zorica1ORCID,Hsieh Patrick2ORCID,Meisel Hans-Joerg3,Skelly Andrea C.4,Brodt Erika D.4,Brodke Darrel S.5ORCID,Park Jong-Beom6ORCID,Yoon S. Tim7ORCID,Wang Jeffrey1,

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, CA, USA

2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, CA, USA

3. Department of Neurosurgery, Bergmannstrost Hospital, Halle, Germany

4. Aggregate Analytics, Kirkland, WA, USA

5. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake, UT, USA

6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Uijongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea School of Medicine, Uijongbu, Korea

7. Department of Orthopedics, Emory Spine Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Abstract

Study design: Systematic review. Objectives: To systematically review, critically appraise and synthesize evidence on use of autologous stem cells sources for fusion in the lumbar spine. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 20, 2020 was conducted comparing autologous cell grafts to other biologics for lumbar spine fusion. The focus was on studies comparing distinct patient groups. Results: From 343 potentially relevant citations, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria set a priori. Seven studies compared distinct patient groups, with BMA being used in combination with allograft or autograft not as a standalone material. No economic evaluations were identified. Most observational studies were at moderately high risk of bias. When used for primary lumbar fusion, no statistical differences in outcomes or complications were seen between BMA+autograft/or +allograft compared to autograft/allograft alone. Compared with allograft, data from a RCT suggested statistically better fusion and lower complication rates with concentrated BMA+allograft. When used in revisions, no differences in outcomes were seen between BMA+allograft and either autograft or rh-BMP-2 but fusion rates were lower with BMA+allograft, leading to additional revision surgery. Conclusions: There was substantial heterogeneity across studies in patient populations, sample size, biologic combinations, and surgical characteristics making direct comparisons difficult. The overall quality of evidence for fusion rates and the safety of BMA in lumbar fusion procedures was considered very low, with studies being at moderately high or high risk of bias.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Neurology (clinical),Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3