0
Commentary and Perspective   |    
Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2: What’s a Spine Surgeon to Do?Commentary on an article by J. Michielsen, MD, et al.: “The Effect of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Single-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Arthrodesis”
Michael J. Bolesta, MD1
1 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas
View Disclosures and Other Information
  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF

The author received no payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. Neither the author nor his institution has had any financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with any entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. Also, the author has not had any other relationships, or engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.


Copyright © 2013 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2013 May 15;95(10):e72 1-2. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00124
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 20021. Many U.S. spine surgeons rapidly embraced this product, more often than not in an off-label fashion, without site-specific data on dosage, safety, or efficacy1. Spinal applications of rhBMP-2 are well attested to in the medical literature. Michielsen et al. make a worthy addition with their article. It is a well-designed and well-executed prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. It is sufficiently powered to detect clinically important differences in visual analog scale pain scores and Short Form-36 scores. Each group is one patient shy of the twenty necessary for detecting such a difference in the Oswestry Disability Index. Their data support the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the study and control groups. The second hypothesis, that there is slower trabeculation with BMP, was substantiated. The use of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, uniform implants and technique, along with a single surgeon yields high-quality evidence.
Of course, these same factors limit generalizability. A spine surgeon performing a single-level posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis in patients similar to those in the Michielsen study can probably use either BMP or autogenous iliac crest bone graft, and achieve a good clinical outcome and osseous fusion in the short term. But this assumes comparable surgical skills. If a different technique and different implants are used, the average surgeon may not be able to replicate Michielsen’s outcomes. These data may not apply to multilevel posterior lumbar interbody arthrodeses. They may not extrapolate to the related transforaminal lumbar interbody arthrodesis technique. As the spine surgeon considers other arthrodesis approaches and other regions of the spine, the Michielsen study offers no meaningful guidance concerning the use of rhBMP-2.
There are other limitations. Faced with the type of patient treated by the authors, I would choose autogenous bone to perform this type of arthrodesis. But Michielsen did not describe the graft harvest technique in detail, which could explain the minimal donor-site morbidity reported. I suspect that they removed the small volume of cancellous bone through a cortical window, minimizing muscle stripping. Some have suggested that morbidity at the site of the bone-graft harvest may be overstated in some studies; however, in reality, technique and volume harvested are probably important factors2. The authors also did not report length of stay. Nor did they assess cost. Could the additional operating-room time for graft harvest partially offset the cost of BMP? Did the control group require transfusion, longer hospitalization, or more analgesia, adding to the expense of autograft? The graft dosage was effective, but was it optimal? Although the ectopic bone formation was asymptomatic, the authors only provide two-year outcomes. They expressed intent to follow the study group with computed tomography three years after surgery. This will provide important data about the ossification over time. Does it progress, stabilize, or regress? I would also urge them to obtain clinical data on all thirty-eight patients. It is possible the heterotopic ossification produces late symptoms. It is also possible that a difference in clinical outcome between groups develops over time. These questions and comments are not criticisms but rather reflect questions raised by a well-done study.
What is the spine surgeon to do? As with any powerful technology, the clinician should be thoughtful in the utilization of rhBMP-2. First of all, she or he should use the lowest effective dose. Of course, no firm numbers exist, and the ideal carrier has not been found. The optimal dose is influenced by the surgical site, the surgical approach, and patient-related factors3. Clinical judgment comes into play. Secondly, bias is inevitable. Much has been made of this in the recent spinal literature on rhBMP-22. Every surgeon has opinions regarding the use of BMP. Recognizing this inevitable bias in ourselves, and bringing it into our consciousness, can assist us in better counseling the patient before us. Some patients will clearly benefit from BMP. Others have contraindications2,4. Many fall into a gray intermediate group. Third, shared decision-making is in order. Depending on the application, the literature informs us of known risks and potential risks of BMP. Even the patients who clearly would benefit from this technology must be apprised of both the advantages and disadvantages of using BMP. Ideally, the spine surgeon will guide each patient to a truly informed consent. This may be time-consuming, but it is part of our ethical obligation. Finally, the other stakeholder, the payer, will demand a voice. The fine study by Michielsen et al. gives us meaningful data, but, more importantly, provides food for thought as we address issues begging for equipoise, and as far as possible, primum non nocere.
Deyo  RA;  Ching  A;  Matsen  L;  Martin  BI;  Kreuter  W;  Jarvik  JG;  Angier  H;  Mirza  SK. Use of bone morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion surgery for older adults with lumbar stenosis: trends, complications, repeat surgery, and charges. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).  2012 Feb 1;37(  3):222-30.[CrossRef]
 
Carragee  EJ;  Hurwitz  EL;  Weiner  BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J.  2011 Jun;11(  6):471-91.[CrossRef]
 
Glassman  SD;  Howard  J;  Dimar  J;  Sweet  A;  Wilson  G;  Carreon  L. Complications with recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 in posterolateral spine fusion: a consecutive series of 1037 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).  2011 Oct 15;36(  22):1849-54.[CrossRef]
 
Comer  GC;  Smith  MW;  Hurwitz  EL;  Mitsunaga  KA;  Kessler  R;  Carragee  EJ. Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with and without bone morphogenetic protein-2 augmentation: a 10-year cohort controlled study. Spine J.  2012 Oct;12(  10):881-90.[CrossRef]
 

Submit a comment

References

Deyo  RA;  Ching  A;  Matsen  L;  Martin  BI;  Kreuter  W;  Jarvik  JG;  Angier  H;  Mirza  SK. Use of bone morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion surgery for older adults with lumbar stenosis: trends, complications, repeat surgery, and charges. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).  2012 Feb 1;37(  3):222-30.[CrossRef]
 
Carragee  EJ;  Hurwitz  EL;  Weiner  BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J.  2011 Jun;11(  6):471-91.[CrossRef]
 
Glassman  SD;  Howard  J;  Dimar  J;  Sweet  A;  Wilson  G;  Carreon  L. Complications with recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 in posterolateral spine fusion: a consecutive series of 1037 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).  2011 Oct 15;36(  22):1849-54.[CrossRef]
 
Comer  GC;  Smith  MW;  Hurwitz  EL;  Mitsunaga  KA;  Kessler  R;  Carragee  EJ. Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with and without bone morphogenetic protein-2 augmentation: a 10-year cohort controlled study. Spine J.  2012 Oct;12(  10):881-90.[CrossRef]
 
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe





Related Content
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
JBJS Case Connector
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
JBJS Jobs
05/03/2012
California - UCLA/OH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
11/15/2013
Louisiana - Ochsner Health System
03/05/2014
Oklahoma - The University of Oklahoma
12/31/2013
S. Carolina - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina