Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2025
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
High Lumbar Spinal Fusion Rates Using Cellular Bone Allograft Irrespective of Surgical Approach
Todd Lansford1, Daniel K Park2, Joshua J Wind3
1South Carolina Sports Medicine, North Charleston, SC, USA tlansford@gmail.com.
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 (NCT02969616). 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.
Trial Registration:
NCT02969616.
