Autologous donor site morbidity after posterior iliac crest bone harvest. Comparative analysis of two surgical techniques

Main Article Content

Pedro Luis Bazán
Jorge Delfor Cancinos
Álvaro Enrique Borri
Nicolás Romano Yalour

Abstract

Introduction: The autologous bone graft harvested from the posterior iliac crest for spinal fusion presents osteogenic, osteoinductive and osteoconductive advantages; however, its disadvantages include a limited amount of available material and an incidence of donor site complications ranging from 8% to 39%, including donor site pain, neurovascular injury and pelvic fractures.
Objectives: To compare the posterior iliac crest corticoancellous harvest using a chisel-gouge approach versus a curette approach; to evaluate intra-operative and post-operative complications; to quantify the harvested bone; to grade donor site pain.
Materials and Methods: Prospective randomized study in 34 consecutive patients for posterolateral fusion of the thoracic and lumbosacral spine; 26 women and 8 men, between 15 and 79 years of age. Subjects were divided into two groups. Group 1: curette approach; and Group 2: chisel-gouge approach. The evaluation included: the amount of bone harvested, the time required and complications.
Results: Group 1: 19 patients, 14 women and 5 men. The procedure lasted an average of 9.94min, and the harvested material averaged 9.26g. Denis Pain Scale scores at the first follow-up survey: 13 patients scored 1; 5 scored 2; 1 scored 3. Denis Pain Scale scores at the third follow-up survey: 15 patients scored 1; 2 scored 2; 1 scored 3.  Group 2: 15 patients, 12 women and 3 men. The procedure lasted an average of 8.6min, and the harvested material averaged 9.26g. Denis Pain Scale scores at their first follow-up: 10 patients scored 1; 2 scored 2; 3 scored 3. At the third follow-up, all patients scored 1.
Conclusions: We observed that the posterior iliac crest graft harvested using the chisel-gouge approach is faster, provides more graft and results in less pain at 60 days.
Level of Evidence: II

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
Bazán, P. L., Cancinos, J. D., Borri, Álvaro E., & Romano Yalour, N. (2020). Autologous donor site morbidity after posterior iliac crest bone harvest. Comparative analysis of two surgical techniques. Revista De La Asociación Argentina De Ortopedia Y Traumatología, 85(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.15417/issn.1852-7434.2020.85.1.704
Section
Clinical Research
Author Biographies

Pedro Luis Bazán, Hospital Italiano de La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos General José de San Martín, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Jorge Delfor Cancinos, Ortopedia y Traumatología, Sanatorio Ipensa, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Especialista Certificado en Cirugía de Columna Vertebral.  Especialista Certificado en Ortopedia y Traumatología de la AAOT Especialista Consultor en Ortopedia y traumatología del Colegio de Médico Distrito I

Álvaro Enrique Borri, Hospital Italiano de La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Especialista Certificado en Cirugía de Columna Vertebral.  Especialista Certificado en Ortopedia y Traumatología de la AAOT Especialista Jerarquizado en Ortopedia y traumatología del Colegio de Médico Distrito I

Nicolás Romano Yalour, Hospital Italiano de La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Especialista Jerarquizado en Ortopedia y traumatología del Colegio de Médico Distrito I

References

1. Silber J, Anderson GD, Daffner SD, Brislin BT, Leland JN, Hilibrand AS, et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28(2):134-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301150-00008

2. Robertson PA, Wray AC. Natural history of posterior iliac crest bone graft donation for spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26(13):1473-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200107010-00018

3. David R, Folman Y, Pikarsky I, Leitner Y, Catz A, Gepstein R. Harvesting bone graft from the posterior iliac crest
by less traumatic, midline approach. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;(16)1:27-30.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200302000-00005

4. Delawi D, Dhert WJ, Castelein, RM, Verbout AJ, Oner FC, The incidence of donor site pain after bone graft
harvesting from the posterior iliac crest may be overestimated. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32(17):1865-8.
https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318107674e

5. Ebraheim NA, Elgafy H, Xu R. Bone-graft harvesting from iliac and fibular donor sites: techniques and
complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2001;9:210- 8. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200105000-00007

6. Ahlmann E, Patzakis M, Roidis N, Shepherd L, Holtom P. Comparison of anterior and posterior iliac crest bone
grafts in terms of harvest-site morbidity and functional outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84(5):716-20. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200205000-00003

7. Sengupta DK, Truumees E, Patel CK, Kazmierczak C, Hughes B, Elders G, et al. Outcome of local bone versus
autogenous iliac crest bone graft in the instrumented posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa
1976) 2006;31:985-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000215048.51237.3c

8. Gibson S, McLeod I, Wardlaw IM, Urbaniak S. Allograft versus autograft in instrumented posterolateral
lumbar spinal fusion. A randomized control trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27(15):1599-603.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200208010-00002