Pedicle screw instrumentation has been used to stabilize the thoracolumbar spine for several decades. Although pedicle screws were originally placed via a freehand technique, there has been a movement in favor of pedi...Pedicle screw instrumentation has been used to stabilize the thoracolumbar spine for several decades. Although pedicle screws were originally placed via a freehand technique, there has been a movement in favor of pedicle screw placement with the aid of imaging. Such assistive techniques include fluoroscopy guidance and stereotactic navigation. Imaging has the benefit of increased visualization of a pedicle's trajectory, but can result in increased morbidity associated with radiation exposure, increased time expenditure, and possible workflow interruption. Many institutions have reported high accuracies with each of these three core techniques. However, due to differing definitions of accuracy and varying radiographic analyses, it is extremely difficult to compare studies side-by-side to determine which techniques are superior. From the literature, it can be concluded that pedicles of vertebrae within the mid-thoracic spine and vertebrae that have altered morphology due to scoliosis or other deformities are the most difficult to cannulate. Thus, spine surgeons would benefit the most from using assistive technologies in these circumstances. All other pedicles in thethoracolumbar spine should theoretically be cannulated with ease via a free-hand technique, given appropriate training and experience. Despite these global recommendations, appropriate techniques must be chosen at the surgeon's discretion. Such determinations should be based on the surgeon's experience and the specific pathology that will be treated.展开更多
BACKGROUND Over 400000 Americans annually undergo spinal fusion surgeries, yet up to 40%of these procedures result in pseudoarthrosis even with iliac crest autograft, the current "gold standard" treatment. T...BACKGROUND Over 400000 Americans annually undergo spinal fusion surgeries, yet up to 40%of these procedures result in pseudoarthrosis even with iliac crest autograft, the current "gold standard" treatment. Tissue engineering has the potential to solve this problem via the creation of bone grafts involving bone-promoting growth factors(e.g., bone morphogenetic protein 2). A broad assessment of experimental growth factors is important to inform future work and clinical potential in this area. To date, however, no study has systematically reviewed the investigational growth factors utilized in preclinical animal models of spinal fusion.AIM To review all published studies assessing investigational growth factors for spinal fusion in animal models and identify promising agents for translation.METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Embase,Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases with searches run on May 29 th,2018. The search query was designed to include all non-human, preclinical animal models of spinal fusion reported in the literature without a timespan limit. Extracted data for each model included surgical approach, level of fusion,animal species and breed, animal age and sex, and any other relevant characteristics. The dosages/sizes of all implant materials, spinal fusion rates,and follow-up time points were recorded. The data were analyzed and the results reported in tables and text. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review.RESULTS Twenty-six articles were included in this study, comprising 14 experimental growth factors: AB204(n = 1); angiopoietin 1(n = 1); calcitonin(n = 3);erythropoietin(n = 1); basic fibroblast growth factor(n = 1); growth differentiation factor 5(n = 4), combined insulin-like growth factor 1 +transforming growth factor beta(n = 4); insulin(n = 1); NELL-1(n = 5); noggin(n= 1); P-15(n = 1); peptide B2 A(n = 2); and secreted phosphoprotein 24(n = 1).The fusion rates of the current gold standard treatment(autologous iliac crest bone graft, ICBG) and the leading clinically used growth factor(BMP-2) ranged widely in the included studies, from 0-100% for ICBG and from 13%-100% for BMP-2. Among the identified growth factors, calcitonin, GDF-5, NELL-1, and P-15 resulted in fusion rates of 100% in some cases. In addition, six growth factors-AB204, angiopoietin 1, GDF-5, insulin, NELL-1, and peptide B2 A-resulted in significantly enhanced fusion rates compared to ICBG, BMP-2, or other internal control in some studies. Large heterogeneity in animal species, fusion method,and experimental groups and time points was observed across the included studies, limiting the direct comparison of the growth factors identified herein.CONCLUSION Several promising investigational growth factors for spinal fusion have been identified herein; directly comparing the fusion efficacy and safety of these agents may inform clinical translation.展开更多
基金Supported by Gordon and Marilyn Macklin Foundation
文摘Pedicle screw instrumentation has been used to stabilize the thoracolumbar spine for several decades. Although pedicle screws were originally placed via a freehand technique, there has been a movement in favor of pedicle screw placement with the aid of imaging. Such assistive techniques include fluoroscopy guidance and stereotactic navigation. Imaging has the benefit of increased visualization of a pedicle's trajectory, but can result in increased morbidity associated with radiation exposure, increased time expenditure, and possible workflow interruption. Many institutions have reported high accuracies with each of these three core techniques. However, due to differing definitions of accuracy and varying radiographic analyses, it is extremely difficult to compare studies side-by-side to determine which techniques are superior. From the literature, it can be concluded that pedicles of vertebrae within the mid-thoracic spine and vertebrae that have altered morphology due to scoliosis or other deformities are the most difficult to cannulate. Thus, spine surgeons would benefit the most from using assistive technologies in these circumstances. All other pedicles in thethoracolumbar spine should theoretically be cannulated with ease via a free-hand technique, given appropriate training and experience. Despite these global recommendations, appropriate techniques must be chosen at the surgeon's discretion. Such determinations should be based on the surgeon's experience and the specific pathology that will be treated.
文摘BACKGROUND Over 400000 Americans annually undergo spinal fusion surgeries, yet up to 40%of these procedures result in pseudoarthrosis even with iliac crest autograft, the current "gold standard" treatment. Tissue engineering has the potential to solve this problem via the creation of bone grafts involving bone-promoting growth factors(e.g., bone morphogenetic protein 2). A broad assessment of experimental growth factors is important to inform future work and clinical potential in this area. To date, however, no study has systematically reviewed the investigational growth factors utilized in preclinical animal models of spinal fusion.AIM To review all published studies assessing investigational growth factors for spinal fusion in animal models and identify promising agents for translation.METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Embase,Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases with searches run on May 29 th,2018. The search query was designed to include all non-human, preclinical animal models of spinal fusion reported in the literature without a timespan limit. Extracted data for each model included surgical approach, level of fusion,animal species and breed, animal age and sex, and any other relevant characteristics. The dosages/sizes of all implant materials, spinal fusion rates,and follow-up time points were recorded. The data were analyzed and the results reported in tables and text. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review.RESULTS Twenty-six articles were included in this study, comprising 14 experimental growth factors: AB204(n = 1); angiopoietin 1(n = 1); calcitonin(n = 3);erythropoietin(n = 1); basic fibroblast growth factor(n = 1); growth differentiation factor 5(n = 4), combined insulin-like growth factor 1 +transforming growth factor beta(n = 4); insulin(n = 1); NELL-1(n = 5); noggin(n= 1); P-15(n = 1); peptide B2 A(n = 2); and secreted phosphoprotein 24(n = 1).The fusion rates of the current gold standard treatment(autologous iliac crest bone graft, ICBG) and the leading clinically used growth factor(BMP-2) ranged widely in the included studies, from 0-100% for ICBG and from 13%-100% for BMP-2. Among the identified growth factors, calcitonin, GDF-5, NELL-1, and P-15 resulted in fusion rates of 100% in some cases. In addition, six growth factors-AB204, angiopoietin 1, GDF-5, insulin, NELL-1, and peptide B2 A-resulted in significantly enhanced fusion rates compared to ICBG, BMP-2, or other internal control in some studies. Large heterogeneity in animal species, fusion method,and experimental groups and time points was observed across the included studies, limiting the direct comparison of the growth factors identified herein.CONCLUSION Several promising investigational growth factors for spinal fusion have been identified herein; directly comparing the fusion efficacy and safety of these agents may inform clinical translation.
