Cargando…

Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery

The primary objective of this review is to evaluate whether the degree of processing and the clinical utility of commercially available mineralized bone allografts for spine surgery meet the 2020 US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guideline definitions for minimal manipulation and homologous us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hubbell, Paul J., Roth, Brandon, Block, Jon E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37504879
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jfb14070384
_version_ 1785080497052844032
author Hubbell, Paul J.
Roth, Brandon
Block, Jon E.
author_facet Hubbell, Paul J.
Roth, Brandon
Block, Jon E.
author_sort Hubbell, Paul J.
collection PubMed
description The primary objective of this review is to evaluate whether the degree of processing and the clinical utility of commercially available mineralized bone allografts for spine surgery meet the 2020 US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guideline definitions for minimal manipulation and homologous use, respectively. We also assessed the consistency of performance of these products by examining the comparative postoperative radiographic fusion rates following spine surgery. Based on the FDA’s criteria for determining whether a structural allograft averts regulatory oversight and classification as a drug/device/biologic, mineralized bone allografts were judged to meet the Agency’s definitional descriptions for minimal manipulation and homologous use when complying with the American Association of Tissue Banks’ (AATB) accredited guidelines for bone allograft harvesting, processing, storing and transplanting. Thus, these products do not require FDA medical device clearance. Radiographic fusion rates achieved with mineralized bone allografts were uniformly high (>85%) across three published systematic reviews. Little variation was found in the fusion rates irrespective of anatomical location, allograft geometry, dimensions or indication, and in most cases, the rates were similar to those for autologous bone alone. Continued utilization of mineralized bone allografts should be encouraged across all spine surgery applications where supplemental grafts and/or segmental stability are required to support mechanically solid arthrodeses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10381653
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103816532023-07-29 Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery Hubbell, Paul J. Roth, Brandon Block, Jon E. J Funct Biomater Opinion The primary objective of this review is to evaluate whether the degree of processing and the clinical utility of commercially available mineralized bone allografts for spine surgery meet the 2020 US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guideline definitions for minimal manipulation and homologous use, respectively. We also assessed the consistency of performance of these products by examining the comparative postoperative radiographic fusion rates following spine surgery. Based on the FDA’s criteria for determining whether a structural allograft averts regulatory oversight and classification as a drug/device/biologic, mineralized bone allografts were judged to meet the Agency’s definitional descriptions for minimal manipulation and homologous use when complying with the American Association of Tissue Banks’ (AATB) accredited guidelines for bone allograft harvesting, processing, storing and transplanting. Thus, these products do not require FDA medical device clearance. Radiographic fusion rates achieved with mineralized bone allografts were uniformly high (>85%) across three published systematic reviews. Little variation was found in the fusion rates irrespective of anatomical location, allograft geometry, dimensions or indication, and in most cases, the rates were similar to those for autologous bone alone. Continued utilization of mineralized bone allografts should be encouraged across all spine surgery applications where supplemental grafts and/or segmental stability are required to support mechanically solid arthrodeses. MDPI 2023-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10381653/ /pubmed/37504879 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jfb14070384 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Opinion
Hubbell, Paul J.
Roth, Brandon
Block, Jon E.
Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery
title Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery
title_full Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery
title_fullStr Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery
title_short Comparative Evaluation of Mineralized Bone Allografts for Spinal Fusion Surgery
title_sort comparative evaluation of mineralized bone allografts for spinal fusion surgery
topic Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37504879
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jfb14070384
work_keys_str_mv AT hubbellpaulj comparativeevaluationofmineralizedboneallograftsforspinalfusionsurgery
AT rothbrandon comparativeevaluationofmineralizedboneallograftsforspinalfusionsurgery
AT blockjone comparativeevaluationofmineralizedboneallograftsforspinalfusionsurgery