Comparing Rates of Fusion and Time to Fusion in Viable Cellular Allograft and Autograft. (December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Frederick, Robert M.; Sarfani, Shumaila; Chiu, Chi-Yang; Hayes, Tristan; Bettin, Clayton; Grear, Benjamin; Richardson, David; Murphy, G. Andrew
• Is Part Of: Foot & ankle international. Volume 43:Number 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1548
• Page End: 1553
• Publication Date: 2022-12
• Subjects: cellular allograft -- autograft -- time to fusion -- arthrodesis -- bone union; Foot -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Ankle -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; 617.585
• DOI: 10.1177/10711007221119164
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1071-1007

Abstract

Background: Autograft or allograft frequently are used to enhance bone union in foot and ankle surgery. Viable cellular bone allograft uses viable cells and bone scaffolding in a gel base, but uncertainty remains around allograft's greater efficacy than autograft regarding rates of fusion (ROF) and time to fusion (TTF). Methods: Autograft, viable cellular allograft, and viable cellular allograft with autograft were compared in 199 forefoot, midfoot, and hindfoot arthrodeses performed over a 6-year period. Data collected from electronic medical records and radiographs were analyzed to determine ROF and TTF as well as rates of revision surgery for delayed or nonunion and compared among groups. Results: Eighty-seven patients comprised the autograft group, 81 the allograft group, and 31 the combined group. No significant differences were noted in patient demographics among the groups. No statistically significant differences in ROF were noted among the 3 groups, with 86% (75 of 87) fusion in the autograft group, 93% (75 of 81) in the allograft group, and 84% (26 of 31) in the combined group ( P = .20). After conducting a multivariate analysis, we found no statistically significant difference for allograft or combined graft on TTF ( P = .1379 and .2311, respectively). No significant difference was found in rate of revision surgery for nonunion, which was 1.2% (1 of 81) in the allograft group, 3.4% (3 of 87) in the autograft group, and 6.5% (2 of 31) in the combined group ( P = .3). Conclusion: No significant difference was found in ROF, TTF, or rate of revision surgery when comparing viable cellular allograft to autograft or combined allograft-autograft. Viable cellular allograft may be a reasonable alternative to the gold standard of autograft and should be considered an option in patients undergoing arthrodesis in foot and ankle surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic.