Back to Search Start Over

The effect of bioactive glasses on spinal fusion: A cross-disciplinary systematic review and meta-analysis of the preclinical and clinical data.

Authors :
Cottrill, Ethan
Pennington, Zach
Lankipalle, Nithin
Ehresman, Jeff
Valencia, Cara
Schilling, Andrew
Feghali, James
Perdomo-Pantoja, Alexander
Theodore, Nicholas
Sciubba, Daniel M.
Witham, Timothy
Source :
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience; Aug2020, Vol. 78, p34-46, 13p
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

• First systematic review and meta -analysis on bioactive glasses in spinal fusion. • Across 396 patients, fusion was seen in 84% treated with bioactive glass. • Fusion rate was similar for autograft-alone and bioactive glass-autograft mixtures. • Similar findings were observed in the animal literature, suggesting translatability. • Bioactive glasses may offer clinical value as an autograft extender in spinal fusion. Pseudarthrosis following spinal fusion is correlated with poorer patient outcomes and consequently is an area of continued interest within spinal research. Recently, bioactive glasses have been proposed as a means of augmenting fusion rates. Here, we present the first systematic review and meta -analysis of the existing preclinical and clinical literature on the effect of bioactive glasses on spinal fusion. Using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases, we queried all publications in the English-language literature examining the effect of bioactive glasses on spinal fusion. The primary endpoint was fusion rate at last follow-up and the secondary endpoint for clinical studies was the rate of deep wound infection. Random-effects meta -analyses were performed independently for the preclinical and clinical data. Twelve preclinical studies (267 animals) and 12 clinical studies (396 patients) evaluating a total of twelve unique bioactive glass formulations were included. Across clinical studies, fusion was seen in 84% treated with bioactive glass. On sub-analysis, fusion rates were similar for standalone autograft (91.6%) and bioactive glass-local autograft mixtures (89.6%). Standalone bioactive glass substrates produced inferior fusion rates relative to autograft alone (33.6% vs. 98.8%; OR 0.01, p < 0.02). Rates of deep wound infection did not differ between the bioactive glass and autograft groups (3.1%). The preclinical data similarly showed comparable rates of fusion between autograft and bioactive glass-treated animals. The available data suggest that bioactive glass-autograft mixtures confer similar rates of spinal fusion relative to standalone autograft without altering the risk of deep wound infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
09675868
Volume :
78
Database :
Supplemental Index
Journal :
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
144845916
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.04.035