Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

An update on bone substitutes for spinal fusion

Miyazaki M., Tsumura H., Wang JC., Alanay A.

Narrative Review on Back & Spine, published in Eur Spine J (2009) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Eur Spine J (2009)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
19280232
PMCID
PMC2899672
DOI
10.1007/s00586-009-0924-x
Citations
77

Abstract (original English)

With the current advances in spinal surgery, an understanding of the precise biological mechanism of each bone substitute is necessary for inducing successful spinal fusion. In this review, the categories of bone substitutes include allografts, ceramics, demineralized bone matrix, osteoinductive factors, autogenous platelet concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, and gene therapy. Further, clinical studies have been evaluated by their levels of evidence in order to elucidate the precise effect of the bone substitute employed and to establish clinical guidance. This article will review both clinical studies based on evidence and basic research in current advances in order to avoid as far as possible any chances of failure in the future and to understand cellular biology in novel technologies.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Bone MatrixHumansSpinal DiseasesPlatelet-Derived Growth FactorBone SubstitutesCeramicsSpinal FusionMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, HomologousGenetic Therapy

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research