This review demonstrates improved fusion rates in high-risk patients using cellular bone allograft, suggesting its viability in challenging cases.
Introduction: Solid fusion is critical for successful spine and foot and ankle arthrodesis. Risk factors including smoking, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and multilevel surgery elevate the risk of non-union. Cellular bone allografts (CBAs) have emerged as alternatives to autograft, but outcomes in high-risk populations remain insufficiently characterized. Methods: This review examines a cellular bone allograft (TE-CBA) in spine and foot and ankle fusion procedures, with a particular emphasis on outcomes in patients with risk factors for non-union. Clinical endpoints included fusion success, patient-reported outcomes, complication rates, and the influence of patient risk profiles. Only studies that included high-risk populations were analyzed. The included studies were primarily Level IV evidence (prospective/retrospective with comparisons to previously published outcomes). Results: In the lumbar spine, TE-CBA achieved a 90.5% fusion rate at 12 months and 95.3% at 24 months, with significant improvements in pain and function, even among high-risk patients. In ACDF procedures up to four levels, TE-CBA achieved a 97.4% fusion rate at 12 months, including 100% in one-, two-, and four-level procedures. In foot and ankle arthrodesis, 95.5% of patients achieved fusion within 12 months, with an average time to union of 6 months across patients with major risk factors. Studies employed strict fusion criteria, including combined motion analysis and CT-confirmed bridging bone. Conclusion: TE-CBA demonstrated consistently high fusion success across anatomical sites in cohorts that included patients at high risk for non-union. Further controlled trials and mechanistic studies are needed to elucidate how CBAs might mitigate biologically impaired bone healing environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lansford et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: