Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Substitutes of structural and non-structural autologous bone grafts in hindfoot arthrodeses and osteotomies: a systematic review

Marc Andreas Müller1*, Alexander Frank1, Matthias Briel23, Victor Valderrabano1, Patrick Vavken14, Vahid Entezari4 and Arne Mehrkens1

Author affiliations

1 Orthopedic Department University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, Basel, 4031, Switzerland

2 Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel, Hebelstrasse 10, Basel, 4031, Switzerland

3 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

4 Center for Advanced Orthopedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Brookline Avenue 330, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

Citation and License

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2013, 14:59  doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-59

Published: 7 February 2013

Abstract

Background

Structural and non-structural substitutes of autologous bone grafts are frequently used in hindfoot arthrodeses and osteotomies. However, their efficacy is unclear.

The primary goal of this systematic review was to compare autologous bone grafts with structural and non-structural substitutes regarding the odds of union in hindfoot arthrodeses and osteotomies.

Methods

The Medline and EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant randomized and non-randomized prospective studies as well as retrospective comparative chart reviews.

Results

10 studies which comprised 928 hindfoot arthrodeses and osteotomies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The quality of the retrieved studies was low due to small samples sizes and confounding variables. The pooled random effect odds for union were 12.8 (95% CI 12.7 to 12.9) for structural allografts, 5.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 6.0) for cortical autologous grafts, 7.3 (95% CI 6.0 to 8.6) for cancellous allografts and 6.0 (95% CI 5.7 to 6.4) for cancellous autologous grafts. In individual studies, the odds of union in hindfoot arthrodeses achieved with cancellous autologous grafts was similar to those achieved with demineralised bone matrix or platelet derived growth factor augmented ceramic granules.

Conclusion

Our results suggest an equivalent incorporation of structural allografts as compared to autologous grafts in hindfoot arthrodeses and osteotomies. There is a need for prospective randomized trials to further clarify the role of substitutes of autologous bone grafts in hindfoot surgery.