Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion

Raj D. Rao, Vaibhav Bagaria, Krishnaj Gourab, Steven T. Haworth, Vinod B. Shidham, Brian C. Cooley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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 nonparametric 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

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)563-569
Number of pages7
JournalSpine Journal
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Autografts
Spine
Transplants
Equipment and Supplies
Control Groups
X Ray Tomography
Rabbits
Pseudarthrosis
Bone Regeneration
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Arthrodesis
Cimetidine
Hematoxylin
Eosine Yellowish-(YS)
Mandible
Skull
Orthopedics
Tomography
Students
polylactic acid-polyglycolic acid copolymer

Keywords

  • Bioabsorbable implant
  • Graft containment
  • Intertransverse lumbar spine fusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Rao, R. D., Bagaria, V., Gourab, K., Haworth, S. T., Shidham, V. B., & Cooley, B. C. (2008). Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion. Spine Journal, 8(4), 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.017

Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion. / Rao, Raj D.; Bagaria, Vaibhav; Gourab, Krishnaj; Haworth, Steven T.; Shidham, Vinod B.; Cooley, Brian C.

In: Spine Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, 07.2008, p. 563-569.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rao, RD, Bagaria, V, Gourab, K, Haworth, ST, Shidham, VB & Cooley, BC 2008, 'Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion', Spine Journal, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.017
Rao RD, Bagaria V, Gourab K, Haworth ST, Shidham VB, Cooley BC. Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion. Spine Journal. 2008 Jul;8(4):563-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.017
Rao, Raj D. ; Bagaria, Vaibhav ; Gourab, Krishnaj ; Haworth, Steven T. ; Shidham, Vinod B. ; Cooley, Brian C. / Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion. In: Spine Journal. 2008 ; Vol. 8, No. 4. pp. 563-569.
@article{6cad4a04af7f44288b7f5ceab6a5c913,
title = "Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion",
abstract = "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 nonparametric 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",
keywords = "Bioabsorbable implant, Graft containment, Intertransverse lumbar spine fusion",
author = "Rao, {Raj D.} and Vaibhav Bagaria and Krishnaj Gourab and Haworth, {Steven T.} and Shidham, {Vinod B.} and Cooley, {Brian C.}",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "563--569",
journal = "Spine Journal",
issn = "1529-9430",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Autograft containment in posterolateral spine fusion

AU - Rao, Raj D.

AU - Bagaria, Vaibhav

AU - Gourab, Krishnaj

AU - Haworth, Steven T.

AU - Shidham, Vinod B.

AU - Cooley, Brian C.

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - 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 nonparametric 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

AB - 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 nonparametric 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

KW - Bioabsorbable implant

KW - Graft containment

KW - Intertransverse lumbar spine fusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=46049105535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=46049105535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.017

DO - 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.017

M3 - Article

C2 - 17923443

AN - SCOPUS:46049105535

VL - 8

SP - 563

EP - 569

JO - Spine Journal

JF - Spine Journal

SN - 1529-9430

IS - 4

ER -