Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Dec 28;8:49. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-8-49.

Allogeneic morphogenetic protein vs. recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a radiographic and economic analysis.

Author information

1
Orthopedics International, 12333 NE 130th Lane #400, Kirkland, WA 98034, USA. jeffreyrohmd@gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Since the introduction of rhBMP-2 (Infuse) in 2002, surgeons have had an alternative substitute to autograft and its related donor site morbidity. Recently, the prevalence of reported adverse events and complications related to the use of rhBMP-2 has raised many ethical and legal concerns for surgeons. Additionally, the cost and decreasing reimbursement landscape of rhBMP-2 use have required identification of a viable alternative. Osteo allogeneic morphogenetic protein (OsteoAMP) is a commercially available allograft-derived growth factor rich in osteoinductive, angiogenic, and mitogenic proteins. This study compares the radiographic fusion outcomes between rhBMP-2 and OsteoAMP allogeneic morphogenetic protein in lumbar interbody fusion spine procedures.

METHODS:

Three hundred twenty-one (321) patients from three centers underwent a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure and were assessed by an independent radiologist for fusion and radiographically evident complications. The independent radiologist was blinded to the intervention, product, and surgeon information. Two hundred and twenty-six (226) patients received OsteoAMP with autologous local bone, while ninety-five (95) patients received Infuse with autologous local bone. Patients underwent radiographs (x-ray and/or CT) at standard postoperative follow-up intervals of approximately 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Fusion was defined as radiographic evidence of bridging across endplates, or bridging from endplates to interspace disc plugs. Osteobiologic surgical supply costs were also analyzed to ascertain cost differences between OsteoAMP and rhBMP-2.

RESULTS:

OsteoAMP produced higher rates of fusion at 6, 12, and 18 months (pā€‰ā‰¤ā€‰0.01). The time required for OsteoAMP to achieve fusion was approximately 40% less than rhBMP-2 with approximately 70% fewer complications. Osteobiologic supply costs were 80.5% lower for OsteoAMP patients (73.7% lower per level) than for rhBMP-2.

CONCLUSIONS:

Results of this study indicate that OsteoAMP is a viable alternative to rhBMP-2 both clinically and economically when used in TLIF and LLIF spine procedures.

PMID:
24373225
PMCID:
PMC3916062
DOI:
10.1186/1749-799X-8-49
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center