Neil Bhamb, Linda E A Kanim, Susan Drapeau, Suneeth Mohan, Erick Vasquez, Dan Shimko, William McKAY, Hyun W Bae
Background: Insufficient data exist on bone graft substitute materials efficacy; two thirds lack any clinical data.1,2 This prospective animal study identified efficacy differences among commercially available materials of several classes. Methods: Historically validated muscle pouch osteoinduction study (OIS) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) were performed in an athymic rat model. Grafting material products implanted were demineralized bone matrix (DBM)-based allografts (Accell EVO3, DBX Mix, DBX Strip, Grafton Crunch, Grafton Flex, Grafton Matrix, Grafton Putty, Magnifuse, and Progenix Plus), allografts (OsteoSponge, MinerOss), cellular allograft (Osteocel Plus), ceramics (Mozaik Strip), or activated ceramics (Actifuse ABX Putty, Vitoss BA)...
October 2019: International Journal of Spine Surgery