Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical outcomes and fusion success associated with the use of BoneSave in spinal surgery

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Achieving spinal fusion is the guiding principle behind surgical treatment for a range of spinal pathologies, often requiring a substantial amount of bonegraft. Iliac crest autograft represents the gold standard although associated morbidities and limited graft material have led to the development of alternatives. BoneSave (Stryker, UK), a porous tricalcium phosphate-hydroxyapatite ceramic, is one such alternative, employed in spinal fusion over the past few years. Very little research exists into the clinical outcomes associated with its use.

Methods

Clinical data was collected retrospectively from the case notes of 45 patients who underwent posterolateral inter-transverse spinal fusion involving the application of BoneSave between June 2003 and January 2005. Latest follow-up information was collected via a postal questionnaire (average follow-up of 46 months). Validated outcome instruments employed included the Short Form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index. In addition visual analogue scales for pain, patient global impression of change, work status, persisting symptoms and patient satisfaction data were collected. Radiological evaluation of fusion was carried out from the most recent spinal radiographs available for each patient.

Results

Qualitative post-operative data was available in 96%, with a questionnaire response rate of 68.4%. Radiographical evaluation was possible in 67%. Significant post-operative improvements were seen across all outcome measures in the large majority of cases. Successful fusion was achieved in 56.7% of cases.

Conclusions

The clinical outcomes associated with the use of BoneSave in spinal fusion are comparable to those available in the literature for more conventional techniques. The fusion rate was not significantly lower.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: Influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 29(4):455–463. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000090825.94611.28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oakley MJ, Smith WR, Morgan SJ, Ziran NM, Ziran BH (2007) Repetitive posterior iliac crest autograft harvest resulting in an unstable pelvic fracture and infected non-union: case report and review of the literature. Patient Saf Surg 1:6. doi:10.1186/1754-9493-1-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gupta MC, Maitra S (2002) Bone grafts and bone morphogenetic proteins in spine fusion. Cell Tissue Bank 3(4):255–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blom AW, Cunningham JL, Hughes G, Lawes TJ, Smith N, Blunn G, Learmonth ID, Goodship AE (2005) The compatibility of ceramic bone graft substitutes as allograft extenders for use in impaction grafting of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87B:421–425. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B3.14337

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB et al (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SK (1994) SF-36® Physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. The Health Institute, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  7. Christensen FB, Laursen M, Gelineck J, Eiskjær SP, Thomsen K, Bünger CE (2001) Interobserver and intrabserver agreement of radiograph interpretation with and without pedicle screw implants. The need for a detailed classification system in posterolateral spinal fusion. Spine 26(5):538–544. doi:10.1097/00007632-200103010-00018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review. Spine 30:2312–2320. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000182315.88558.9c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Andersen T, Videbæk TS, Hansen ES, Bünger C, Christensen FB (2008) The positive effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion is preserved at long-term follow-up: a RCT with 11–13 year follow-up. Eur Spine J 17:272–280. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0494-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD et al (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability index, MODEMS and the SF-36. Spine 28:607–615. doi:10.1097/00007632-200303150-00017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Burkus KJ, Carreon LY (2006) Clinical outcomes and fusion success at 2 years of single-level instrumented posterolateral fusions with recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2/compression resistant matrix versus iliac crest bone graft. Spine 31(22):2534–2539. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000240715.78657.81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L (1993) Short form 36 (SF 36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 306:1437–1440. doi:10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brodsky AE, Kovalsky EW, Khalil MA (1991) Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical explorations. Spine 16S:261–265. doi:10.1097/00007632-199106001-00017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kant AP, Daum WJ, Dean SM et al (1995) Evaluation of lumbar spine fusion: plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation. Spine 20:2313–2317. doi:10.1097/00007632-199511000-00009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

There was no external funding requested or received for this study. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Arun Kapur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kapur, R.A., Amirfeyz, R., Wylde, V. et al. Clinical outcomes and fusion success associated with the use of BoneSave in spinal surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130, 641–647 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0936-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0936-3

Keywords

Navigation