Comparative analysis of autograft

Background: Autografts are regarded as the gold standard for spinal fusion owing to their capability to promote bone formation. However, synthetic bone grafts are gaining popularity for their consistency and avoidance of donor site complications. This meta-analysis compares the treatment results of autografts and synthetic bone grafts in spinal fusion procedures and evaluates their clinical effectiveness. Methods: The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines and conducted a comprehensive literature search. It compared autografts and synthetic bone grafts in spinal fusion by employing a random-effects model for meta-analysis, assessing publication bias, and evaluating the certainty of evidence using Grading, Reporting, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines, along with methodological quality through the risk of bias-2.0 (RoB-2.0) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. Results: Following a thorough screening, nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In the subgroup analysis, the pooled effect size for the fusion rate between different types of synthetic bone graft [ceramics, i-Factor, demineralized bone matrix (DBM)] and compared with autograft was 1.24 odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-2.02; P=0.38; I Conclusions: Synthetic bone grafts can be a reliable alternative to autografts in spinal fusion, and the recommendation is weak due to low-certainty evidence. Meanwhile, further longitudinal studies are required to validate these findings.