Comparison of clinical efficacy and surgical safety among three bone graft modalities in spinal tuberculosis: a network meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research 2023-05, Vol.18 (1), p.368-368, Article 368
• Main Authors: Li, Jian, Qin, Xiuyu, Wang, Jiani, Yang, Wangzhe, Bai, Junjun, Lv, Jia
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Autogenous granular bone graft; Autogenous massive bone graft; Bone grafts; Comparative analysis; Humans; Infections; Information management; Literature reviews; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Meta-analysis; Network Meta-Analysis; Orthopedics; Performance evaluation; Quality control; Safety; Skin & tissue grafts; Spinal Fusion - adverse effects; Spinal Fusion - methods; Spinal tuberculosis; Systematic Review; Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery; Titanium; Titanium mesh bone graft; Treatment Outcome; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Spinal - diagnostic imaging; Tuberculosis, Spinal - surgery
• ISSN: 1749-799X; 1749-799X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03848-9

Autogenous granular bone graft (AG), autogenous massive bone graft (AM), and titanium mesh bone graft (TM) are the three commonly utilized bone implant methods for spinal tuberculosis. However, the gold standard is still controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and surgical safety of three primary bone graft modalities. For systematic literature review, several databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched up to December 2022. Stata (version 14.0) was employed for data analysis. Our network meta-analysis included 517 patients from 7 articles whose qualities are acceptable based on our quality assessment criteria. In direct comparison, AG was associated with a shorter operation time (MD = 73.51; CI 30.65-116.37) and a lesser blood loss (MD = 214.30; CI 7.17-421.44) than AM. TM had fewer loss of Cobb angle than AG (MD = 1.45; CI 0.13-2.76) and AM (MD = 1.21; CI 0.42-1.99). Compared with AG, TM (MD = 0.96; CI 0.06-1.87) was related to a shorter bone graft fusion time. In indirect comparison, for the clinical parameters, the rank of CRP (from best to worst) was as follows: TM (58%) > AM (27%) > AG (15%), the rank of ESR (from best to worst) was as follows: AG (61%) > AM (21%) > TM (18%), and the rank of VAS (from best to worst) was as follows: AG (65%) > TM (33%) > AM (2%). In the aspect of surgical data, what is noteworthy is that AG showed less blood loss [AG (93%) > TM (6%) > AM (1%)], operative time [AG (97%) > TM (3%) > AM (0)], and complications [AG (75%) > TM (21%) > AM (4%)] than AM and TM. As for imaging parameters, the rank of the loss of Cobb angle (from best to worst) was as follows: TM (99%) > AM (1%) > AG (0). Moreover, TM showed a shorter bone graft fusion time than AM and AG: TM (96%) > AM (3%) > AG (1%). The results indicated that AG might be the optional treatment for spinal tuberculosis owing to the outcomes of surgical safety. Moreover, TM is another right choice which can significantly reduce the loss of Cobb angle and shorten bone graft fusion time with long-term follow-up.