Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2017 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 6

The efficacy of in situ local autograft in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a comparison of three different grafting methods

Pages
1728–1735
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Without the use of additional grafts, sufficient fusion can be achieved with the use of local autograft alone for posterior spinal fusion in patients with AIS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: This study was performed to show the efficacy of in situ local autograft with a comparison of in situ local autograft, local autograft with allograft, and local autograft with posterior iliac crest autograft.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: In this prospective randomized study, a total of 65 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients were separated into 3 groups: Group 1 using local autograft and allograft, Group 2 using local autograft only, and Group 3 using local autograft and posterior iliac crest autograft.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Without the use of additional grafts, sufficient fusion can be achieved with the use of local autograft alone for posterior spinal fusion in patients with AIS.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: This study was performed to show the efficacy of in situ local autograft with a comparison of in situ local autograft, local autograft with allograft, and local autograft with posterior iliac crest autograft. Materials and methods: In this prospective randomized study, a total of 65 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients were separated into 3 groups: Group 1 using local autograft and allograft, Group 2 using local autograft only, and Group 3 using local autograft and posterior iliac crest autograft. Posterior segmental instrumentation was also applied to all patients. The mean follow-up period was 28.5 months (range, 15 40 months). Pseudarthrosis was investigated with the multiplanar and three-dimensional images obtained using multislice computed tomography, thoracolumbar bone single-photon emission computed tomography, and three-phase regional and whole body bone scintigraphy. Results: Pseudarthrosis was not observed in any patient. Fusion was obtained in all patients at the end of the follow-up periods. Conclusion: Similar results were obtained in respect of fusion in all 3 groups. Without the use of additional grafts, sufficient fusion can be achieved with the use of local autograft alone for posterior spinal fusion in patients with AIS.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDOĞAN, N. H., ÖZDEMİR, H. M., SAKAOĞULLARI, A., CENGİZ, B., IŞIK, M. (2022). The efficacy of in situ local autograft in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a comparison of three different grafting methods. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 6, 1728–1735. https://ajindex.com/articles/610486

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Hibbs RA. An operation for progressive spinal deformities: a preliminary report of three cases from the service of the orthopaedic hospital. New York Medical Journal 1911; 93: 1013
  2. Albee FH. Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott’s disease: a preliminary report. JAMA 1911; 57: 885
  3. Price CT, Connolly JF, Carantzas AC. Comparison of bone grafts for posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2003; 28: 793-798
  4. Violas P, Chapuis M, Bracq H. Local autograft bone in the surgical management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2004; 29: 189-192
  5. Betz RR, Petrizzo AM, Kerner PJ, Falatyn SP, Clements DH, Huss GK. Allograft versus no graft with a posterior multisegmented hook system for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2006; 31: 121-127
  6. Betz RR, Lavelle WF, Samdani AF. Bone grafting options in children. Spine 2010; 35: 1648-1654
  7. Dawson EG, Clader TJ, Bassett LW. A comparison of different methods to diagnose pseudarthrosis following posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67; 1153-1159
  8. Bridwell KH, O’Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Blanke K. Posterior spinal fusion supplemented with only allograft bone in paralytic scoliosis. Does it work? Spine 1994; 19; 2658-2666
  9. Galler RM, Sonntag VKH. Bone Graft Harvest. Barrow Quarterly 2003; 19; 4
  10. Moe JH. A critical analysis of methods of fusion for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958; 40: 529-554
  11. Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS. Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity: a statistical evaluation. Spine 1995; 20: 1055-1060
  12. Fernyhough JC, Schimandle JJ, Weigel MC, Edwards CC, Levine AM. Chronic donor site pain complicating bone graft harvesting from the posterior iliac crest for spinal fusion. Spine 1992; 17: 1474-1480
  13. Robertson PA, Wray AC. Natural history of posterior iliac crest bone graft donation for spinal surgery: a prospective analysis of morbidity. Spine 2001; 26: 1473-1476
  14. Blanco JS, Sears CJ. Allograft bone use during instrumentation and fusion in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1997; 22: 1338-1342
  15. Knapp DR Jr, Jones ET. Use of cortical cancellous allograft for posterior spinal fusion. Clin Orthop 1988; 229: 99-106
  16. Dodd CAF, Fergusson CM, Freedman L, Houghton GR, Thomas D. Allograft versus autograft bone in scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1988; 70: 431-434
  17. Fabry G. Allograft versus autograft bone in idiopathic s