Skip to main content
. 2013 May 9;5(2):77–85. doi: 10.1111/os.12030

Table 1.

Summary of bone graft alternatives in ALIF procedures

Graft option Fusion rates (%) Type of graft Properties Advantages Disadvantages Complications with graft Cost
Osteogenesis Osteoconduction Osteoinduction Strength
Autograft 51.9–100 Cancellous bone +++ +++ ++ Host tissue; natural biological properties Finite supply, increased surgical time, blood loss, pain DSM Nil
Cortical bone + + +
Allograft 42.8–100 No DSM, abundant supply, versatility as extender and/or graft Risk of bacterial contamination, viral transmission, host rejection. Graft collapse ++
Cancellous Fresh‐frozen ++ +
Freeze‐dried ++ +
Synthetic
DBM 90* + ++ No DSM, useful as bone extender Lacks strength, only one ALIF clinical trial Graft collapse ++
Ceramics 79.3–100 +++ + No DSM Not effective as stand‐alone, lack of ALIF clinical trials Cage subsidence +
rhBMP‐1 44–100 ++ +++ ++ No DSM, very potent osteoinductive properties, high fusion rates Rare, costly, uncertainty surrounding appropriate clinical dosage Heterotopic bone formation, early osteolysis, graft subsidence, inflammation +++

*only one clinical study on application of DBM to ALIF has been conducted; †cost of grafts are approximate and relative only. DBM, demineralised bone matrix; DSM, donor site morbidity; rhBMP‐2, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2; “+” and “−” represent relative strengths of properties, with “+” meaning the presence of the property, and “−” meaning its absence.