Gi-Wuk Jang, Kyung-Hyun Kim, Dong-Ah Shin, Hyun-Joon Jang, Chang-Kyu Lee, Dong-Kyu Chin, Jeong-Yoon Park, Seong-Wook Koo, Bong-Ju Moon
{"title":"采用生物活性玻璃陶瓷隔离器-7 (NOVOMAX-FUSION)和异体移植隔离器进行前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合后的疗效比较:一项回顾性、病例匹配、多中心研究。","authors":"Gi-Wuk Jang, Kyung-Hyun Kim, Dong-Ah Shin, Hyun-Joon Jang, Chang-Kyu Lee, Dong-Kyu Chin, Jeong-Yoon Park, Seong-Wook Koo, Bong-Ju Moon","doi":"10.1002/jbm.b.35521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The bioactive glass–ceramic spacer (BGS)-7, a biosynthetic intervertebral fusion material introduced in 2014, has not been the subject of comparative clinical studies on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. This study, for the first time, aims to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of the renewed BGS-7, released in 2019, with those of an allograft spacer. The comparison includes a finite element analysis of the biomechanical properties of each implant, adding a novel dimension to the research. We prospectively followed up on 29 patients who underwent ACDF using BGS-7 as the experimental group. To select a control group for comparison, 253 patients with level 1 ACDF with an allograft spacer between 2012 and 2022 were selected from our hospital. Using propensity score matching, 27 and 54 patients in the BGS-7 and allograft groups, respectively, were selected. The average subsidence length was 1.02 ± 1.44 mm per level in the BGS-7 group and 2.27 ± 2.25 mm per level in the allograft group. Subsidence was observed in 14 of 54 patients (25.9%) in the allograft group and one of 27 patients (3.7%) in the BGS-7 group (<i>p</i> = 0.016). In the allograft group, 16 of the 54 patients (29.6%) monitored for 6 months achieved satisfactory fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. Thirty-eight of 54 patients (70.4%) followed up for > 1 year in the allograft group achieved adequate fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. In the BGS-7 group, 17 of the 27 patients (63.0%) monitored for 6 months achieved satisfactory fusion results with grades 4 and 5. Twenty-three of the 27 patients (85.2%) followed up for > 1 year obtained adequate fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. There was a significant difference in the fusion rates between the two groups at 6 months (<i>p</i> = 0.008). BGS-7 is a reliable instrument for ACDF with no instances of instrumental failure. The BGS-7 group had positive clinical outcomes after surgery without any untoward events, and an early fusion rate with the creation of a bone bridge was noted during the 6-month follow-up period. Our findings not only indicate the safety of BGS-7 but also its practicality as a substitute for allografts in ACDF, instilling confidence in its application.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15269,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Bioactive Glass–Ceramic Spacer-7 (NOVOMAX-FUSION) and an Allograft Spacer: A Retrospective, Case-Matched, Multicenter Study\",\"authors\":\"Gi-Wuk Jang, Kyung-Hyun Kim, Dong-Ah Shin, Hyun-Joon Jang, Chang-Kyu Lee, Dong-Kyu Chin, Jeong-Yoon Park, Seong-Wook Koo, Bong-Ju Moon\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jbm.b.35521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>The bioactive glass–ceramic spacer (BGS)-7, a biosynthetic intervertebral fusion material introduced in 2014, has not been the subject of comparative clinical studies on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. This study, for the first time, aims to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of the renewed BGS-7, released in 2019, with those of an allograft spacer. The comparison includes a finite element analysis of the biomechanical properties of each implant, adding a novel dimension to the research. We prospectively followed up on 29 patients who underwent ACDF using BGS-7 as the experimental group. To select a control group for comparison, 253 patients with level 1 ACDF with an allograft spacer between 2012 and 2022 were selected from our hospital. Using propensity score matching, 27 and 54 patients in the BGS-7 and allograft groups, respectively, were selected. The average subsidence length was 1.02 ± 1.44 mm per level in the BGS-7 group and 2.27 ± 2.25 mm per level in the allograft group. Subsidence was observed in 14 of 54 patients (25.9%) in the allograft group and one of 27 patients (3.7%) in the BGS-7 group (<i>p</i> = 0.016). In the allograft group, 16 of the 54 patients (29.6%) monitored for 6 months achieved satisfactory fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. Thirty-eight of 54 patients (70.4%) followed up for > 1 year in the allograft group achieved adequate fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. In the BGS-7 group, 17 of the 27 patients (63.0%) monitored for 6 months achieved satisfactory fusion results with grades 4 and 5. Twenty-three of the 27 patients (85.2%) followed up for > 1 year obtained adequate fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. There was a significant difference in the fusion rates between the two groups at 6 months (<i>p</i> = 0.008). BGS-7 is a reliable instrument for ACDF with no instances of instrumental failure. The BGS-7 group had positive clinical outcomes after surgery without any untoward events, and an early fusion rate with the creation of a bone bridge was noted during the 6-month follow-up period. Our findings not only indicate the safety of BGS-7 but also its practicality as a substitute for allografts in ACDF, instilling confidence in its application.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbm.b.35521\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbm.b.35521","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
生物活性玻璃陶瓷间隔器(BGS)-7是2014年推出的一种生物合成椎间融合材料,尚未成为颈椎前路椎间盘切除术和融合(ACDF)手术比较临床研究的主题。这项研究首次旨在比较2019年发布的更新后的BGS-7与同种异体移植间隔剂的放射学和临床结果。比较包括对每个植入物的生物力学特性的有限元分析,为研究增加了一个新的维度。我们以BGS-7为实验组,对29例行ACDF的患者进行前瞻性随访。选取我院2012年至2022年间采用同种异体移植间隔剂的1级ACDF患者253例作为对照组。采用倾向评分匹配,分别选择BGS-7组和同种异体移植组27例和54例患者。BGS-7组平均沉降长度为1.02±1.44 mm /水平,同种异体移植物组平均沉降长度为2.27±2.25 mm /水平。同种异体移植物组54例患者中有14例(25.9%)出现下陷,BGS-7组27例患者中有1例(3.7%)出现下陷(p = 0.016)。在同种异体移植组中,54例患者中有16例(29.6%)监测了6个月,获得了满意的融合结果,分为4级和5级。同种异体移植物组54例患者中有38例(70.4%)随访1年,获得了4级和5级的良好融合结果。在BGS-7组中,27例患者中有17例(63.0%)监测了6个月,达到了满意的4级和5级融合结果。27例患者中有23例(85.2%)随访1年,获得了足够的4级和5级融合结果。6个月时两组融合率差异有统计学意义(p = 0.008)。BGS-7是一种可靠的ACDF仪器,没有仪器故障的实例。BGS-7组术后临床结果良好,无任何不良事件,在6个月的随访期间观察到骨桥的早期融合率。我们的研究结果不仅表明了BGS-7的安全性,而且表明了其作为ACDF同种异体移植物替代品的实用性,为其应用注入了信心。
Comparison of Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Bioactive Glass–Ceramic Spacer-7 (NOVOMAX-FUSION) and an Allograft Spacer: A Retrospective, Case-Matched, Multicenter Study
The bioactive glass–ceramic spacer (BGS)-7, a biosynthetic intervertebral fusion material introduced in 2014, has not been the subject of comparative clinical studies on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. This study, for the first time, aims to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of the renewed BGS-7, released in 2019, with those of an allograft spacer. The comparison includes a finite element analysis of the biomechanical properties of each implant, adding a novel dimension to the research. We prospectively followed up on 29 patients who underwent ACDF using BGS-7 as the experimental group. To select a control group for comparison, 253 patients with level 1 ACDF with an allograft spacer between 2012 and 2022 were selected from our hospital. Using propensity score matching, 27 and 54 patients in the BGS-7 and allograft groups, respectively, were selected. The average subsidence length was 1.02 ± 1.44 mm per level in the BGS-7 group and 2.27 ± 2.25 mm per level in the allograft group. Subsidence was observed in 14 of 54 patients (25.9%) in the allograft group and one of 27 patients (3.7%) in the BGS-7 group (p = 0.016). In the allograft group, 16 of the 54 patients (29.6%) monitored for 6 months achieved satisfactory fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. Thirty-eight of 54 patients (70.4%) followed up for > 1 year in the allograft group achieved adequate fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. In the BGS-7 group, 17 of the 27 patients (63.0%) monitored for 6 months achieved satisfactory fusion results with grades 4 and 5. Twenty-three of the 27 patients (85.2%) followed up for > 1 year obtained adequate fusion outcomes with grades 4 and 5. There was a significant difference in the fusion rates between the two groups at 6 months (p = 0.008). BGS-7 is a reliable instrument for ACDF with no instances of instrumental failure. The BGS-7 group had positive clinical outcomes after surgery without any untoward events, and an early fusion rate with the creation of a bone bridge was noted during the 6-month follow-up period. Our findings not only indicate the safety of BGS-7 but also its practicality as a substitute for allografts in ACDF, instilling confidence in its application.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research – Part B: Applied Biomaterials is a highly interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal serving the needs of biomaterials professionals who design, develop, produce and apply biomaterials and medical devices. It has the common focus of biomaterials applied to the human body and covers all disciplines where medical devices are used. Papers are published on biomaterials related to medical device development and manufacture, degradation in the body, nano- and biomimetic- biomaterials interactions, mechanics of biomaterials, implant retrieval and analysis, tissue-biomaterial surface interactions, wound healing, infection, drug delivery, standards and regulation of devices, animal and pre-clinical studies of biomaterials and medical devices, and tissue-biopolymer-material combination products. Manuscripts are published in one of six formats:
• original research reports
• short research and development reports
• scientific reviews
• current concepts articles
• special reports
• editorials
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research – Part B: Applied Biomaterials is an official journal of the Society for Biomaterials, Japanese Society for Biomaterials, the Australasian Society for Biomaterials, and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. Manuscripts from all countries are invited but must be in English. Authors are not required to be members of the affiliated Societies, but members of these societies are encouraged to submit their work to the journal for consideration.