Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion
Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion
复制标题
DOI:
10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.017
复制
发表时间:
2008-07-01
期刊:
影响因子:
4.5
通讯作者:
Cooley, Brian C.
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Rao, Raj D.;Bagaria, Vaibhav;Cooley, Brian C.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Pseudoarthrosis rates in lumbar intertransverse fusion remain high. Compression and displacement of the developing fusion mass by the paraspinal musculature may be a contributory factor. Biocontainment devices have been clinically used in the skull and mandible to guide bone regeneration. The role of a mechanical device in containing graft material in the developing posterolateral lumbar spine fusion is unclear.PURPOSE: To determine the benefits of using a bioabsorbable graft-containment device for lumbar intertransverse fusion, and to evaluate the biocompatibility of this implant by histological analysis of the host tissue reaction.STUDY DESIGN: A rabbit intertransverse spine fusion model was used to evaluate a bioabsorbable graft-containment implant. Study and control groups were compared with regard to the rate, volume, and quality of fusion, as well as host tissue reaction to the graft and implant.METHODS: Fourteen adult male New Zealand White rabbits underwent bilateral posterolateral intertransverse spine arthrodesis at L3-L4. The control group (n=7) received autograft alone, and the study group received autografts placed in open meshed hemicylinders fashioned from LactoSorb sheets (LactoSorb; Biomet Orthopedics Inc., Warsaw, IN). Spines were harvested at 6 weeks and imaged. Radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images were used to calculate the rate, area, and volume of fusion mass. Sections were fixed and stained with hematoxylin-eosin and Mallory trichrome for histological analysis of fusion and host tissue response. The Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistical test was used for the radiographic and CT qualitative assessments. The CT volume quantitation was analyzed using the Student t test. A p value of .05) between the biocontainment and control groups. The volume of fusion revealed a significant increase with biocontainment (mean +/- standard error; total left+right fusion sides=2.88 +/- 0.30 cc) compared with controls (2.12 +/- 0.15 cc) (p