OBJECTIVE: Based on a systematic literature review, to identify studies with level of evidence 1 to compare bone graft substitutes to autologous bone grafts. METHODS: An electronic survey of papers comparing the use of autologous bone graft and a bone graft substitute in orthopedic surgery was performed. Inclusion criteria considered were prospective and randomized clinical trials in orthopedic surgery, with a minimum of 20 patients, involving spine or appendicular skeleton bones, published between January 1990 and January 2006. RESULTS: 22 papers were identified, all of them written in the English language, five of which compared autologous to homologous grafting, seven involving the use of type 2 morphogenetic protein (BMP-2), three evaluating type 7 morphogenetic protein (BMP-7), and seven using biological ceramic, such as hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, and calcium sulfate. Results that most suggested equivalence with autologous grafting were found in the papers with BMP-2 in spine surgery, although several objections may be raised regarding theses and the other papers reviewed, relating to method and possible conflict of interest. CONCLUSION: There are not many papers with high level of evidence to show the clinical applicability of existing bone substitutes.
Bone substitutes; Bone transplantation; Transplantation; autologous; Durapatite; Calcium sulfate
