J Korean Soc Spine Surg.  2002 Sep;9(3):211-215. 10.4184/jkss.2002.9.3.211.

Local Bone versus Autogenous Iliac Bone Graft for Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion in the Same Patient

• Cho KJ
• Choi DH
• Jung SR
• Park SR

• KMID: 2003227
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4184/jkss.2002.9.3.211

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the usefulness of local bone obtained from laminectomy and decortication as graft bone instead of autogenous iliac bone in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty-one patients underwent posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation. Local bone was inserted in the right side of intertransverse space and autogenous iliac bone was in the left side. We compared fusion rate in the radiographs at postoperative 6 week, 3 month, 6 month and 1 year.
RESULTS
Radiographic fusion grading of local bone was 20 cases of grade 1, 8 cases of grade 2, 2 cases of grade 3 and 1 case of grade 4. Fusion grading of autogenous iliac bone was 24 cases of grade 1, 4 cases of grade 2 and 3 cases of grade 3. Bone fusion was complete after 9.1 months in local bone and 7.2 months in autogenous iliac bone. No significant differences was found between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
The local bone in posterolateral lumbar fusion is appropriate for satisfactory fusion instead of autogenous iliac bone if the amount of local bone is sufficient and decortication of the fusion bed is proper.

Keyword

Posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion; Local bone

MeSH Terms

Humans
Laminectomy
Prospective Studies
Spinal Fusion
Transplants*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. A 48 year-old female underwent posterolateral lumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation. Local bone was inserted in the right intertransverse space and autogenous iliac bone was in the left side. The radiogrphs were taken at postoperative 6 week, 3 month (A), 6 month and 1 year (B). The local bone was incoperated more rapidly than autogenous iliac 2 bone, but no significant differences was found between two groups.

Reference

1). Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials: An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop. 371:10–27. 2000.

2). Cho KJ, Lee JY, Oh IS, Kim RS, Mo YC. Comparison Between Allograft Mixed with Local Bone and Autograft in Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion. J Korean Spine Sugery. 7:565–569. 2000.

3). Knapp DR, Jones ET. Use of cortical cancellous allograft for posterior spinal fusion. Clin Orthop. 229:99–106. 1988.

4). Morone MA, Boden SD. Experimental posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with a demineralized bone matrix gel. Spine. 23:159–167. 1998.

5). Sandhu HS, Grewel HS, Parvataneni H. Bone grafting for spinal fusion. Orthop Clin North Am. 30:685–698. 1999.

6). Sassard WR, Eldman DK, Gray PM, Block JE, Russo R, Russel JL, Taboada EM. Augmenting local bone with graft on demineralized bone matrix for posterolateral lumbar spine fusion: Avoiding second site autologous bone harvest. Orthopedics. 23:1059–1064. 2000.

7). Toribatake Y, Hutton WC, Tomita K, Boden SD. Vascularization of the fusion mass in a posterolateral intertransverse process fusion. Spine. 23:1149–1154. 1998.