Upload
howard-morgan
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
[2] Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Stromqvist B, et al. Posterolateral lumbar
fusion. Outcome of 71 consecutive operations after 4 (2-7) years. Acta
Orthop Scand 1994;65(3):309 -14.
[3] Becker S, Maissen O, Igor P, et al. Osteopromotion by a beta–
tricalcium phosphate/bone marrow hybrid implant for use in spinal
surgery. Spine 2006;31(1):1 -7.
[4] Bernhardt M, Swartz DE, Clothiaux PL, et al. Posterolateral lumbar
and lumbosacral fusion with and without pedicle screw internal
fixation. Clin Orthop 1992;284:109 -15.
[5] Cammisa Jr FP, Lowery G, Garfin SR, et al. Two-year fusion rate
equivalency between Grafton DBM gel and autograft in posterolateral
spine fusion: a prospective controlled trial employing a side-by-side
comparison in the same patient. Spine 2004;29(6):660 -6.
[6] Epstein NE. SF-36 outcomes and fusion rates following multilevel
laminectomies and 1-2 level instrumented posterolateral fusions
utilizing lamina autograft and demineralized bone matrix. J Spinal
Disord Tech 2006 [in press].
[7] Epstein NE. Non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusions utilizing
combined lamina autograft and beta tricalcium phosphate in a
predominantly geriatric population: an outcome assessment. Spinal
Surg 2006;20(4):7 -18.
[8] Epstein NE. A preliminary study of the efficacy of beta tricalcium
phosphate as a bone expander for instrumented posterolateral lumbar
fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19(6):424-9.
[9] France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized
prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcome with and
without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine 1999;24(6):553 -60.
[10] Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.
Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain:
comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective
randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study
Group. Eur Spine J 2003;12(2):178-89.
[11] Gibson S, McLeod I, Wardlaw D, et al. Allograft versus autograft in
instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized
control trial. Spine 2002;27(15):1599-603.
[12] Gunzburg R, Szpalski M. Use of a novel beta–tricalcium phosphate–
based bone void filler as a graft extender in spinal fusion surgeries.
Orthopedics 2002;25(5 Suppl):s591-5.
[13] Jager M, Seller K, Raab P, et al. Clinical outcome in monosegmental
fusion of degenerative lumbar instabilities: instrumented versus non-
instrumented. Med Sci Monit 2003;9(7):324 -7.
[14] Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, et al. Lumbar laminectomy alone or
with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative
lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes.
Spine 1997;22(10):1123-31.
[15] Keene JS, McKinley NE. Iliac crest versus spinous process grafts in
posttraumatic spinal fusions. Spine 1992;17(7):790-4.
[16] Kho VK, Chen WC. The results of posterolateral lumbar fusion with
bone chips from laminectomy in patients with lumbar spondylolis-
thesis. J Chin Med Assoc 2004;67(11):575-8.
[17] Lee YP, Jo M, Luna M, et al. The efficacy of different commercially
available demineralized bone matrix substances in an athymic rat
model. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18(5):439-44.
[18] Louis-Ugbo J, Murakami H, Kim HS, et al. Evidence of osteoinduc-
tion by Grafton demineralized bone matrix in nonhuman primate
spinal fusion. Spine 2004;29(4):360-6.
[19] Martin Jr GJ, Boden SF, Titus L, et al. New formulations of
demineralized bone matrix as a more effective graft alternative in
experimental posterolateral lumbar spine arthrodesis. Spine 1999;
24(7):637 -45.
[20] Morone MA, Boden SD. Experimental posterolateral lumbar spinal
fusion with a demineralized bone matrix gel. Spine 1998;15:159-67.
[21] Muschik M, Ludwig R, Halbhubner S, et al. Beta–tricalcium
phosphate as a bone substitute for dorsal spinal fusion in adolescent
idiopathic scoliosis: preliminary results of a prospective clinical study.
Eur Spine J 2001;10(Suppl 2):S1178-84.
[22] Ohyama T, Kubo Y, Iwata H, et al. Beta–tricalcium phosphate as a
substitute for autograft in interbody fusion cages in the canine lumbar
spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2002;97(3):350 -4.
[23] Price CT, Connolly JF, Carantzas AC, et al. Comparison of bone grafts
for posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine
2003;28(8):793 -8.
[24] Thalgott JS, Giuffre JM, Fritts K, et al. Instrumented posterolateral
lumbar fusion using coralline hydroxyapatite with or without
demineralized bone matrix as an adjunct to autologous bone. Spine
J 2001;1(2):131 -7.
[25] Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, et al. The effect of pedicle
screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in
posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical
study. 1997 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies noteSpine
1997;22(24):2813-22.
Commentary
This is a thorough review of bone graft expander agents
used in augmenting autografts in performing lumbar
fusions. Will genetically engineered bone morphogenic
protein agents make such information obsolete? Perhaps
not—given the economic factors associated with the use of
the newer products.
Howard Morgan, MD
Department of Neurosurgery
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Dallas, TX 75390, USA
N.E. Epstein / Surgical Neurology 69 (2008) 16–19 19