Abstract:ABSTRACTBackground:Over the last several decades, various osteobiologics including allograft, synthetics, and growth factors have been used for lumbar spinal fusion surgery. However, the data on these osteobiologic products remain controversial with conflicting evidence in the literature. This study evaluates the influence of osteobiologic type selection on perioperative complications and hospital-reported charges in single-level and multilevel lumbar fusion.Methods:Using the 2016 and 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 125,143 patients who received lumbar fusion with either autologous tissue substitute, nonautologous tissue substitute, or synthetic substitute. This cohort was split into single-level and multilevel fusion procedures, and one-to-one age and sex propensity score matching was implemented. This resulted in cohorts each consisting of 1967 patients for single-level fusion, and cohorts each consisting of 1657 patients for multilevel fusion. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons of means.Results:Autologous single-level fusion resulted in significantly more postoperative pain at 30-, 90-, and 180-day follow-up compared to fusion with nonautologous graft (P < .05). Multilevel fusion with autologous graft had higher rates of acute postsurgical anemia compared with synthetic (P = .021) and nonautologous (P = .016) alternatives, and less postsurgical infection when compared with nonautologous fusion (P = .0020). In addition, procedures using autologous osteobiologics were associated with significantly more neurological complications at 30 days (P = .049) and 90 days (P = .048) for multi-level fusion and at 30 days (P = .044) for single-level fusion compared with the nonautologous group. Lastly, for both cohorts, the total accrued inpatient hospital charges during admission for patients receiving nonautologous grafts were the most expensive and those for patients receiving autologous grafts were the least expensive.Conclusion:Significant differences were found between the groups with respect to rates of complications, including infection, postoperative pain, and neurologic injury. Furthermore, the hospital-reported charges of each procedure varied significantly. As the field of biologics continues to expand, it is important to continually evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of these novel materials and techniques.Level of Evidence:3Clinical Relevance:With increased utilization of osteobiologics and spinal fusion being a common procedure, longitudinal data on readmissions, and post-operative complications are critical in guiding evidence-based practice.

Does type of bone graft matter? A retrospective review of the use of biological bone grafts in patients undergoing elective 1–3 level spinal interbody fusion

Bone graft substitutes used in anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a contemporary systematic review of fusion rates and complications

The Impact of Osteobiologic Subtype Selection on Perioperative Complications and Hospital-Reported Charges in Single- and Multi-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion

Advances in implants and bone graft types for lumbar spinal fusion surgery

1074 A Prospective, Post Market, Multi-center, Open Label, Non-randomized Clinical Study of the Efficacy of Using a Cellular Bone Allograft (CBA) in Lumbar Fusion Surgery

Existing clinical evidence on the use of cellular bone matrix grafts in spinal fusion: updated systematic review of the literature

The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

Recent Research Advances in Biologic Bone Graft Materials for Spine Surgery

The correlation between bone mineral density and surgical outcomes of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis

Comparison of Different Osteobiologics in Terms of Imaging Modalities and Time Frames for Fusion Assessment in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Clinical Trial Comparing PEEK and Allograft Spacers in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgeries

Trends in Bone Graft Use in the United States

Efficacy of using autologous cells with graft substitutes for spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and imaging features

407 Results of Biphasic Calcium Phosphate Bone Graft With Submicron-Sized Needle-Shaped Surface Topography as Standalone Alternative to Autograft Are Favorable in a Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized, Intra-patient Controlled Trial

Bone grafting augmentation choices in complex proximal humerus fractures: A systematic review

Comparison of synthetic bone graft ABM/P-15 and allograft on uninstrumented posterior lumbar spine fusion in sheep

1078 Performance of Improved Forms of Demineralized Bone Fiber Allografts in Rabbit Posterolateral Spine Fusion Model

Do Osteobiologics Augment Fusion in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery Performed With Mechanical Interbody Devices (Polyether ether ketone, Carbon Fiber, Metal Cages) and is the Fusion Rate Comparable to that With Autograft? A Systematic Review

Outcomes of allogenic cages in anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Usability of a novel Hounsfield units measurement procedure to quantify intercorporal bone graft remodeling in patients after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a case series

Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review