Muñoz-Romero I, Navarro-Ramírez R, Domínguez-Higareda JR, de Leo VR

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 246-249
PDF size: 194.28 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The calcium phosphosilicate is a bioactive synthetic graft that promotes osteoblast migration with its silicon positive charge to the area where it is applied. In this paper we report the incidence of fusion using calcium phosphosilicate as a graft in 93 cases of spinal surgery. Methods: Analysis of 93 cases of spinal surgery performed in a 12-month period in which calcium phosphosilicate was used as an osteosynthesis graft, and fusion was evaluated with computed tomography scan. The number of cases that showed fusion were divided into three gropus; 2, 3-6 and› 6 months after surgery; also it was identified if the instrumentation was transpedicular or interspinous fixation with Aspen interspinous device. Results: Fusion was identified in 45% of patients evaluated at 2 months (n = 33), of which 8 went under transpedicular screw instrumentation and 7 under interspinous fixation with Aspen interspinous device. The group of 3 to 6 months after surgery showed 23% fusion (n = 25); in one case pedicle screws were used, and in 5 cases Aspen interspinous device was the chosen method; and finally, in the group observed 6 months after surgery or more, 30% showed fusion (n = 35) in which 5 patients had pedicle screws and 5 interspinous fixation. Conclusions: We found that fusion with calcium phosphosilicate as biosynthetic graft, in our case series, was maintained between 23 to 45%, regardless of the technique used. Although the percentage of fusion seems low, it must be considered that in this series only calcium phosphosilicate was used, so the possibility exists to improve this percentage if autograft and bone morphogenic protein-2 are combined and the data is analyzed prospectively.

REFERENCES

1. Navarro R, Ogando E, Galván EE, Muñoz I, Téllez M, De Leo R. Fusión e injertos en artrodesis espinal. An Med. 2014; 59 (4): 271-278.

2. Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Sharan A, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Wang JC et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: lumbar fusion for stenosis with spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21 (1): 54-61.

3. Gerhardt L, Boccaccini A. Bioactive glass and glass-ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Materials. 2010; 3 (7): 3867-3910.

4. Hench L. Bioceramics and the future. Ceramics and Society. Faenza: Ed. RJ: Brook; 1995.

5. Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Cong GT, Tsiouris AJ, James AR, Paulo D et al. Radiological and clinical outcomes following extreme lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 20 (6): 623-635.

6. Watson JT. Overview of biologics. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19 (10 Suppl): S14-S16.

7. Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Pelton M, Singh K. Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of silicate-substituted calcium phosphate versus rhBMP-2 in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39 (3): 185-191.

8. Kirschner HJ, Obermayr F, Schaefer J, Lieber J. Treatment of benign bone defects in children with silicate-substituted calcium phosphate (SiCaP). Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2012; 22 (2): 143-147.