Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37740784›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024

Iliac crest bone graft versus cell-based grafts to augment spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aoife Gordon, Fiona Newsome, Daniel P Ahern, Jake M McDonnell, Grainne Cunniffe, Joseph S Butler

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aoife Gordon *National Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Fiona Newsome *National Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Daniel P AhernNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. daniel.ahern@umail.ucc.ie.
Jake M McDonnellNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Grainne CunniffeNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Joseph S ButlerNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Mater Misericordiae University Hospital · IEUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite successful fusion rates with iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), donor-site morbidity and increased operating time remain a considerable limitation and drive the search for alternatives. In this systematic review, grafts with additional cellular supplementation were compared with ICBG for spinal arthrodesis. We compared safety, efficacy and long-term outcomes, thus providing the current and relevant evidence for orthopaedic surgeons to make informed choices regarding this rapidly developing field.

methodsAn electronic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by two independent reviewers for articles published up to 1st March 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial. Cellular allografts were not included. The following data were extracted: Number of patients, type of graft, fusion assessment method, follow-up duration, fusion rates, clinical outcomes and complications. The methodological quality of evidence (MQOE) was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool and Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies (ROBINS) tool developed by Cochrane for evaluating bias in randomised and non-randomised studies.

resultsTen studies fulfiled the inclusion criteria, including 465 patients. The mean number of patients per study was 43.8 (std dev. 28.81, range 12-100). Two studies demonstrated cell-based therapy to be significantly more successful in terms of fusion rates compared to ICBG. However, the remaining eight demonstrated equivocal results. No study found that cell-based therapy was inferior. No difference was seen between the two groups in three studies who focused on degenerative cohorts. No difference in functional outcome scores was seen between the groups. A number of different preparation techniques for cell-based grafts were used throughout the studies.

conclusionCell-based therapy offers a promising alternative to ICBG in spinal fusion surgery, which could help reduce the associated morbidity to patients. This review found that cell-based therapy is non-inferior to iliac crest bone graft and may offer patients an alternative treatment option with fewer complications and reduced post-operative pain. However, the literature to date is limited by heterogeneity of the cell preparation and grafting process. Future research with a unified approach to the cell preparation process is required to fully delineate the potential advantages of this technology.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionBone TransplantationHumansIliumPostoperative PainTreatment OutcomeBone graftCell-based graftsRevision surgerySpinal fusionSpine

Identifiers

PMID37740784
OpenAlexW4386981314

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.