Cargando…

Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion

BACKGROUND: Laminectomies with posterior cervical instrumented fusions often utilize bone graft expanders to supplement cervical lamina/iliac crest autograft/bone marrow aspirate (BMA). Here we compared posterior fusion rates utilizing two graft expanders; Vitoss (Orthovita, Malvern, PA, USA) vs. Na...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Epstein, Nancy E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005578
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156559
_version_ 1782371277566115840
author Epstein, Nancy E.
author_facet Epstein, Nancy E.
author_sort Epstein, Nancy E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Laminectomies with posterior cervical instrumented fusions often utilize bone graft expanders to supplement cervical lamina/iliac crest autograft/bone marrow aspirate (BMA). Here we compared posterior fusion rates utilizing two graft expanders; Vitoss (Orthovita, Malvern, PA, USA) vs. NanOss Bioactive (Regeneration Technologies Corporation [RTI: Alachua, FL, USA]). METHODS: Two successive prospective cohorts of patients underwent 1-3 level laminectomies with 5-9 level posterior cervical fusions to address cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). The first cohort of 72 patients received Vitoss, while the second cohort or 20 patients received NanOss. Fusions were performed utilizing the Vertex/Rod/Eyelet System (Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA) with braided titanium cables through the base of intact spinous processes (not lateral mass screws) cephalad and caudad to laminectomy defects. Fusion was documented by an independent neuroradiologist blinded to the study design, utilizing dynamic X-rays and two dimensional computed tomography (2D-CT) studies up to 6 months postoperatively, or until fusion or pseudarthrosis was confirmed at 1 year. RESULTS: Vitoss and NanOss resulted in comparable times to fusion: 5.65 vs. 5.35 months. Dynamic X-ray and CT-documented pseudarthrosis developed in 2 of 72 Vitoss patients at one postoperative year (e.g. bone graft resorbed secondary to early deep wound infections), while none occurred in the 20 patients receiving NanOss. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study combining cervical laminectomy/fusions, the time to fusion (5.65 vs. 5.35 months), pseudarthrosis (2.7% vs. 0%), and infection rates (2.7% vs. 0%) were nearly comparable sequentially utilizing Vitoss (72 patients) vs. NanOss (20 patients) as bone graft expanders.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4431045
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44310452015-05-22 Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion Epstein, Nancy E. Surg Neurol Int Surgical Neurology International: Spine BACKGROUND: Laminectomies with posterior cervical instrumented fusions often utilize bone graft expanders to supplement cervical lamina/iliac crest autograft/bone marrow aspirate (BMA). Here we compared posterior fusion rates utilizing two graft expanders; Vitoss (Orthovita, Malvern, PA, USA) vs. NanOss Bioactive (Regeneration Technologies Corporation [RTI: Alachua, FL, USA]). METHODS: Two successive prospective cohorts of patients underwent 1-3 level laminectomies with 5-9 level posterior cervical fusions to address cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and/or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). The first cohort of 72 patients received Vitoss, while the second cohort or 20 patients received NanOss. Fusions were performed utilizing the Vertex/Rod/Eyelet System (Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA) with braided titanium cables through the base of intact spinous processes (not lateral mass screws) cephalad and caudad to laminectomy defects. Fusion was documented by an independent neuroradiologist blinded to the study design, utilizing dynamic X-rays and two dimensional computed tomography (2D-CT) studies up to 6 months postoperatively, or until fusion or pseudarthrosis was confirmed at 1 year. RESULTS: Vitoss and NanOss resulted in comparable times to fusion: 5.65 vs. 5.35 months. Dynamic X-ray and CT-documented pseudarthrosis developed in 2 of 72 Vitoss patients at one postoperative year (e.g. bone graft resorbed secondary to early deep wound infections), while none occurred in the 20 patients receiving NanOss. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study combining cervical laminectomy/fusions, the time to fusion (5.65 vs. 5.35 months), pseudarthrosis (2.7% vs. 0%), and infection rates (2.7% vs. 0%) were nearly comparable sequentially utilizing Vitoss (72 patients) vs. NanOss (20 patients) as bone graft expanders. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4431045/ /pubmed/26005578 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156559 Text en Copyright: © 2015 Epstein NE. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Surgical Neurology International: Spine
Epstein, Nancy E.
Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion
title Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion
title_full Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion
title_fullStr Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion
title_full_unstemmed Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion
title_short Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion
title_sort preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus nanoss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion
topic Surgical Neurology International: Spine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005578
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.156559
work_keys_str_mv AT epsteinnancye preliminarydocumentationofthecomparableefficacyofvitossversusnanossbioactiveasbonegraftexpandersforposteriorcervicalfusion