IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0097049.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Meta Analysis of Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery Using Bone Morphogenetic Proteins and Autologous Iliac Crest Bone Graft

Author

Listed:
  • Haifei Zhang
  • Feng Wang
  • Lin Ding
  • Zhiyu Zhang
  • Deri Sun
  • Xinmin Feng
  • Jiuli An
  • Yue Zhu

Abstract

Background: Bone morphogenetic protein (BMPs) as a substitute for iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) has been increasingly widely used in lumbar fusion. The purpose of this study is to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of fusion with BMPs for the treatment of lumbar disease. Methods: Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to nov 2013. Results: 19 RCTs (1,852 patients) met the inclusion criteria. BMPs group significantly increased fusion rate (RR: 1.13; 95% CI 1.05–1.23, P = 0.001), while there was no statistical difference in overall success of clinical outcomes (RR: 1.04; 95% CI 0.95–1.13, P = 0.38) and complications (RR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.85–1.09, p = 0.54). A significant reduction of the reoperation rate was found in BMPs group (RR: 0.57; 95% CI 0.42–0.77, p = 0.0002). Significant difference was found in the operating time (MD−0.32; 95% CI−0.55, −0.08; P = 0.009), but no significant difference was found in the blood loss, the hospital stay, patient satisfaction, and work status. Conclusion: Compared with ICBG, BMPs in lumbar fusion can increase the fusion rate, while reduce the reoperation rate and operating time. However, it doesn’t increase the complication rate, the amount of blood loss and hospital stay. No significant difference was found in the overall success of clinical outcome of the two groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Haifei Zhang & Feng Wang & Lin Ding & Zhiyu Zhang & Deri Sun & Xinmin Feng & Jiuli An & Yue Zhu, 2014. "A Meta Analysis of Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery Using Bone Morphogenetic Proteins and Autologous Iliac Crest Bone Graft," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097049
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097049
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097049&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0097049?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097049. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.