PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Lansford, Todd
AU  - Park, Daniel K.
AU  - Wind, Joshua J.
AU  - Nunley, Pierce
AU  - Peppers, Timothy A.
AU  - Russo, Anthony
AU  - Hassanzadeh, Hamid
AU  - Sembrano, Jonathan
AU  - Yoo, Jung
AU  - Sales, Jonathan
TI  - High Lumbar Spinal Fusion Rates Using Cellular Bone Allograft Irrespective of Surgical Approach
AID  - 10.14444/8612
DP  - 2024 Jul 23
TA  - International Journal of Spine Surgery
PG  - 8612
4099  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/early/2024/07/26/8612.short
4100  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/early/2024/07/26/8612.full
AB  - Background Mounting evidence demonstrates a promising safety and efficacy profile for spinal fusion procedures using cellular bone allograft (CBA). However, limited data exists on fusion outcomes stratified by surgical approach. The current study investigates the effectiveness of CBA in lumbar spinal fusion by surgical approach (ie, anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches).Methods Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (Trinity Elite) were enrolled into a prospective, multi-center, open-label clinical study (NCT 02969616). Fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and computed tomography images. Clinical outcome measures included quality of life (QoL; EQ5D), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) for back pain and leg pain). Patient data extending to 24 months were analyzed in a post-hoc analysis.Results A total of 252 patients underwent interbody fusion (159 women; 93 men). Patients had a mean age of 58.3 years (SD 12.5), height of 168.3 cm (SD 10.2), and weight of 87.3 kg (SD 20.0) with a body mass index of 30.8 kg/m2 (SD 6.5). At 12 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.5%; fusion success was 98.1%, 100.0%, and 97.9% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. At 24 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.9%; fusion success was 97.9%, 100.0%, and 98.8% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. The surgical approach did not significantly impact fusion success. A significant (P < 0.0001) improvement in QoL, pain, and disability scores was also observed. Significant differences in the ODI, VAS, and EQ5D were observed between the treatment groups (P < 0.05).Conclusions CBA represents an attractive alternative to autograft alone, reporting a high rate of successful fusion and clinical outcomes across various surgical approaches.Clinical Relevance The use of CBA for spinal fusion procedures, regardless of surgical approach, provides high rates of fusion with a favorable safety profile and improved patient outcomes.Level of Evidence 4.Trial Registration NCT 02969616.