Efficacy of different bone volume expanders for augmenting lumbar fusions

Abstract

Background A wide variety of bone volume expanders are being used in performing posterolateral lumbar noninstrumented and instrumented lumbar fusions. This article presents a review of their efficacy based on fusion rates, complications, and outcomes. Methods Lumbar noninstrumented and instrumented fusions frequently use laminar autografts and different bone graft expanders. This review presents the utility of multiple forms/ratios of DBMs containing allografts. It also discusses the efficacy of artificial bone graft substitutes, including HA and B-TCP. Dynamic x-ray and/or CT examinations were used to document fusion in most series. Outcomes were variously assessed using Odom's criteria or different outcome questionnaires (Oswestry Questionnaire, SF-36, Dallas Pain Questionnaire, and/or Low Back Pain Rating Scale). Results Performing noninstrumented and instrumented lumbar posterolateral fusions resulted in comparable fusion rates in many series. Similar outcomes were also documented based on Odom's criteria or the multiple patient-based questionnaires. However, in some studies, the addition of spinal instrumentation increased the reoperation rate, operative time, blood loss, and cost. Various forms of DBMs, applied in different ratios to autografts, effectively supplemented spinal fusions in animal models and patient series. β–Tricalcium phosphate, which is used to augment autograft fusions addressing idiopathic scoliosis or lumbar disease, also proved to be effective. Conclusions Different types of bone volume expanders, including various forms of allograft-based DBMs, and artificial bone graft substitutes (HA and B-TCP) effectively promote posterolateral lumbar noninstrumented and instrumented fusions when added to autografts.