Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleBiologics

Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?

Jack Zhong, Jarid Tareen, Kimberly Ashayeri, Carlos Leon, Eaman Balouch, Nicholas O'Malley, Carolyn Stickley, Constance Maglaras, Brooke O’Connell, Ethan Ayres, Charla Fischer, Yong Kim, Themistocles Protopsaltis and Aaron J. Buckland
International Journal of Spine Surgery April 2024, 18 (2) 207-216; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8590
Jack Zhong
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jarid Tareen
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kimberly Ashayeri
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos Leon
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
ME
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eaman Balouch
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas O'Malley
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carolyn Stickley
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Constance Maglaras
PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brooke O’Connell
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ethan Ayres
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charla Fischer
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yong Kim
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Themistocles Protopsaltis
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
MD, FAAOS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron J. Buckland
1 Department of Orthopedics, Division of Spine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
2 Melbourne Orthopedic Group, Melbourne, Australia
3 Spine and Scoliosis Research Associates Australia, Windsor, Australia
MBBS, FRACS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: aaron.buckland@spineandscoliosis.org
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure

    Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve for days to reoperation between patients who received recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP) and those who did not in the index surgery. Abbreviation: Cum, cumulative.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Comparison of demographics among single-level TLIFs with and without BMP use.

    DemographicsNo BMPBMPTotal P
    N 67 (45.3%)81 (54.7%)148
    Age, y60.4 ± 11.758.5 ± 12.059.3 ± 11.90.339
    Female gender39 (56.7%)39 (48.1%)77 (52.0%)0.299
    Body mass index28.2 ± 5.730.0 ± 8.329.2 ± 7.30.125
    Current/past smoker26 (38.8%)33 (40.7%)59 (39.9%)0.811
    Charlson Comorbidity Index2.8 ± 2.52.2 ± 1.52.5 ± 2.10.113
    Diabetes mellitus11 (16.4%)10 (12.3%)21 (14.2%)0.480
    Diabetes with end-organ damage3 (4.5%)2 (2.5%)5 (3.4%)0.501
    History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease5 (7.5%)5 (6.2%)10 (6.8%)0.756
    American Society of Anesthesiologists classification2.3 ± 0.72.3 ± 0.62.3 ± 0.60.818
    Days of follow-up560.3 ± 275.4790.4 ± 440.2686.2 ± 390.8<0.001
    • Abbreviations: BMP, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • Note: Data presented as n (%) or mean ± SD.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Comparison of surgical outcomes among single-level TLIFs with and without BMP use.

    Surgical OutcomesNo BMPBMPTotal P
    Operative time, min219.1 ± 60.2220.6 ± 70.7219.9 ± 65.90.894
    Estimated blood loss, mL257.3 ± 206.6169.6 ± 133.2209.0 ± 175.00.002
    Fluoroscopic dosage, mGy54.6 ± 42.254.9 ± 57.154.8 ± 51.60.973
    Tranexamic acid, mL1746.7 ± 1074.22152.2 ± 979.51922.4 ± 1037.00.297
    Intraoperative complications4 (6.0%)4 (4.9%)8 (5.4%)0.782
     Durotomy2 (3.0%)2 (2.5%)4 (2.7%)0.847
     Neuromonitoring changes2 (3.0%)2 (2.5%)4 (2.7%)0.847
    BMP volume, mL0 ± 01.5 ± 0.41.5 ± 0.4<0.001
    Cancellous allograft use6 (9.0%)6 (7.4%)12 (8.1%)0.731
    Cancellous allograft volume, mL32.1 ± 8.238.0 ± 18.736.8 ± 17.20.182
    Local autograft use46 (68.7%)73 (90.1%)119 (80.4%)0.001
    Iliac crest bone graft use0 (0.0%)7 (8.6%)7 (4.7%)0.014
    Demineralized bone matrix use6 (9.0%)6 (7.4%)12 (8.1%)0.731
    Bone marrow aspirate use8 (11.9%)16 (29.8%)24 (16.2%)0.199
    Cellular bone allograft35 (52.2%)4 (4.9%)39 (26.4%)<0.001
    Expandable cage use33 (34.4%)63 (77.8%)96 (64.9%)<0.001
    Length of stay, d3.5 ± 3.13.0 ± 2.13.2 ± 2.60.219
    • Abbreviations: BMP, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • Note: Data presented as n (%) or mean ± SD.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Comparison of perioperative complications among single-level TLIFs with and without BMP use.

    Postoperative ComplicationsNo BMPBMPTotal P
    Postoperative complications 0–90 d15 (22.4%)12 (14.8%)27 (18.2%)0.235
     Wound complications 0–90 d1 (1.5%)0 (0.0%)1 (0.7%)0.270
     Medical complications 0–90 d5 (7.5%)4 (4.9%)9 (6.1%)0.522
     Neurological complication 0–90 d3 (4.5%)5 (6.2%)8 (5.4%)0.650
    Complications at 90-d Follow-Up
    Any readmission to follow-up11 (16.4%)8 (9.9%)19 (12.8%)0.236
    All postoperative complications or readmission to follow-up29 (43.3%)26 (32.1%)55 (37.2%)0.161
    Any neurological complications postoperative follow-up20 (29.9%)17 (21.0%)37 (25.0%)0.215
     Motor weakness2 (3.0%)1 (1.2%)3 (2.0%)0.452
     Stenosis0 (0.0%)1 (1.2%)1 (0.7%)0.361
     Radiculopathy13 (19.4%)8 (9.9%)21 (14.2%)0.098
      Radiculopathy resolved spontaneously without surgery3 (23.1%)2 (25.0%)5 (23.8%)0.920
     Sensory deficit2 (3.0%)3 (3.7%)5 (3.4%)0.810
     Persistent pain4 (6.0%)3 (3.7%)7 (4.7%)0.518
    Pseudarthrosis at a minimum of 1-y follow-up5 (7.5%)5 (6.2%)10 (6.8%)0.756
     0–1 y1 (1.5%)2 (2.5%)3 (2.0%)0.549
     1–2 y4 (6.0%)2 (2.5%)6 (4.1%)
     2+ y0 (0.0%)1 (1.2%)1 (0.7%)
    Medical complications, postoperative to follow-up5 (7.5%)4 (4.9%)9 (6.1%)0.522
    Wound complications, postoperative to follow-up2 (3.0%)1 (1.2%)3 (2.0%)0.452
    • Abbreviations: BMP, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • Note: Data presented as n (%).

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Comparison of reoperations among single-level TLIFs with and without BMP use.

    ReoperationNo BMPBMPTotal P
    Return to OR 30 d2 (3.0%)3 (3.7%)5 (3.4%)0.810
    Return to OR 90 d3 (4.5%)3 (3.7%)6 (4.1%)0.812
    Return to OR to follow-up12 (17.9%)9 (11.1%)21 (14.2%)0.238
    Levels Involved
     Reoperation at the same level as index surgery11 (16.4%)9 (9.9%)19 (12.8%)0.236
     Reoperation at the adjacent level of index surgery5 (7.5%)4 (4.9%)9 (6.1%)0.522
    Reason for reoperation
     Any neurological symptom10 (14.9%)8 (9.9%)18 (12.2%)0.350
     Pseudarthrosis5 (7.5%)3 (3.7%)8 (5.4%)0.314
     Adjacent segment stenosis5 (7.5%)4 (4.9%)9 (6.1%)0.522
     Central or foraminal stenosis3 (4.5%)5 (6.2%)8 (5.4%)0.65
     Wound infection/complication0 (0.0%)1 (1.2%)1 (0.7%)0.361
     Instrumentation (migration/prominence/failure)0 (0.0%)1 (1.2%)1 (0.7%)0.361
     Hematoma/seroma0 (0.0%)1 (1.2%)1 (0.7%)0.361
    Days to revision surgery400.3 ± 260.4394.6 ± 297.0398.0 ± 267.90.965
    • Abbreviations: BMP, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2; OR, operating room; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • Note: Reoperations and reason for reoperation were recorded by clinical and operative notes at the study institution.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Comparison of single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions that underwent reoperation for pseudarthrosis vs those that did not.

    VariableNo Pseudarthrosis ReoperationReoperation for PseudarthrosisTotal P
    N 140 (94.6%)8 (5.4%)148
    Demographic Characteristics
    Age, y59.6 ± 11.855.1 ± 12.959.3 ± 11.90.304
     18–290 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0.876
     30–4110 (7.1%)1 (9.1%)11 (7.4%)
     42–5334 (24.3%)2 (25.0%)36 (24.3%)
     54–6544 (31.4%)3 (37.5%)47 (31.8%)
     ≥6652 (37.1%)2 (25.0%)54 (36.5%)
    Female Gender74 (52.9%)3 (37.5%)77 (52.0%)0.398
    BMI29.0 ± 7.232.7 ± 8.539.2 ± 7.30.155
    Current/past smoker55 (39.3%)4 (50.0%)59 (399%)0.547
    Charlson Comorbidity Index2.4 ± 2.12.9 ± 2.22.4 ± 2.10.565
    Diabetes mellitus18 (12.9%)3 (37.5%)21 (14.2%)0.052
    Diabetes with end-organ damage2 (1.4%)3 (37.5%)5 (3.5%)<0.001
    History of COPD8 (5.7%)2 (25.0%)10 (6.8%)0.035
    American Society of Anesthesiologist classification2.2 ± 0.62.5 ± 0.92.3 ± 0.60.298
    Days of follow-up679.3 ± 295.1806.9 ± 299.9686.2 ± 390.80.371
    Index Surgery Operative Characteristics
    Operative time, min218.1 ± 63.5251.8 ± 98.7219.9 ± 65.90.160
    Estimated blood loss, mL208.0 ± 178.8225.0 ± 92.6208.9 ± 175.00.791
    Fluoroscopic dosage, mGy50.8 ± 45.8110.5 ± 91.254.8 ± 51.60.003
    BMP use78 (55.7%)3 (37.5%)81 (54.7%)0.314
    Average BMP volume, mL1.5 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.01.5 ± 0.40.565
    Cancellous allograft use98 (70.0%)5 (62.5%)103 (69.3%)0.654
    Cancellous allograft volume, mL37.1 ± 17.633.0 ± 6.736.8 ± 17.20.612
    Local autograft use113 (80.7%)6 (75.0%)119 (80.4%)0.692
    Iliac crest bone graft use6 (4.3%)1 (12.5%)8 (4.7%)0.287
    Demineralized bone matrix use12 (8.6%)0 (0.0%)12 (8.1%)0.388
    Tranexamic acid, mL1776.9 ± 961.43240.2 ± 827.01922.4 ± 1037.00.017
    Bone marrow aspirate use22 (15.7%)2 (25.0%)24 (16.2%)0.488
    Cellular bone allograft37 (26.4%)2 (25.0%)39 (26.4%)0.929
    Expandable cage use90 (64.3%)6 (75.0%)96 (64.9%)0.537
    Length of stay, d3.2 ± 2.74.3 ± 1.83.2 ± 2.60.261
    Pseudarthrosis at a minimum of 1 y follow-up2 (1.4%)8 (80%)10 (6.8%)< 0.001
     0–1 y1 (0.75%)2 (25.0%)3 (2.0%)< 0.001
     1–2 y1 (0.7%)5 (62.5%)6 (4.1%)
     2+ y0 (0.0%)1 (12.5%)1 (0.7%)
    Days to revision surgery305.8 ± 279.3536.3 ± 189.1398.0 ± 267.90.057
    Neurological Symptoms After Index Surgery
    Motor deficit2 (1.4%)1 (12.5%)3 (2.0%)0.031
    Stenosis1 (0.7%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0.810
    Radiculopathy19 (13.6%)2 (25.0%)21 (14.2%)0.368
     Radiculopathy resolved spontaneously without surgery5 (26.3%)0 (0.0%)5 (23.8%)0.406
    Sensory deficit3 (2.1%)2 (25.0%)5 (3.4%)<0.001
    Persistent pain7 (5.0%)0 (0.0%)7 (4.7%)0.517
    • Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • Note: Data presented as n (%) or mean ± SD.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Multiple logistic regression analysis of outcome variables given use of BMP.

    VariableOR (95 % CI) P
    BMP use0.2 (0.01–3.7)0.269
    Age 18–41 y (ref: age >41 y)0.6 (0.03–15.2)0.782
    Smoking history2.2 (0.3–18.1)0.461
    History of COPD7.8 (0.4–147.5)0.170
    Diabetes with end-organ damage112.6 (5.7–2225.8) 0.002
    Bone marrow aspirate use1.1 (0.1–15.9)0.918
    Local autograft use0.3 (0.02–4.1)0.346
    Iliac crest bone graft use21.9 (0.7–694.5)0.080
    Cellular bone allograft use0.4 (0.02–7.3)0.534
    Expandable cage use2.6 (0.3–25.5)0.412
    ASA classification>3 (ref: ≤3)0.6 (0.001–391.0)0.874
    • Abbreviations: ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMP, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ref, reference.

    • Note: Values in boldface represent statistical significance at P < 0.05. Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.381. Hosmer Lemeshow test P = 0.731.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 18, Issue 2
1 Apr 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?
Jack Zhong, Jarid Tareen, Kimberly Ashayeri, Carlos Leon, Eaman Balouch, Nicholas O'Malley, Carolyn Stickley, Constance Maglaras, Brooke O’Connell, Ethan Ayres, Charla Fischer, Yong Kim, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Aaron J. Buckland
International Journal of Spine Surgery Apr 2024, 18 (2) 207-216; DOI: 10.14444/8590

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?
Jack Zhong, Jarid Tareen, Kimberly Ashayeri, Carlos Leon, Eaman Balouch, Nicholas O'Malley, Carolyn Stickley, Constance Maglaras, Brooke O’Connell, Ethan Ayres, Charla Fischer, Yong Kim, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Aaron J. Buckland
International Journal of Spine Surgery Apr 2024, 18 (2) 207-216; DOI: 10.14444/8590
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Key Points
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Stem Cells Therapy as a Treatment for Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review
  • Demineralized Bone Matrix and Fibers in Spinal Fusion
Show more Biologics

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • transforaminal interbody fusion
  • tlif
  • bone morphogenetic protein
  • BMP
  • pseudarthrosis
  • fusion
  • diabetes mellitus
  • Single-level
  • complications

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire