Postoperative lumbar spinal stenosis after intertransverse fusion with granules of hydroxyapatite: a case report
© Inoue et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 13 September 2012
Accepted: 30 October 2012
Published: 7 November 2012
In the present case of postoperative lumbar spinal stenosis after non-instrumented intertransverse fusion with granules of hydroxyapatite (HA), bone union was not completed and the patient felt the recurrence of his symptoms within two years. We performed re-decompression with fusion, and in hematoxylin and eosin staining of HA granulation harvested during revision surgery, fibrous tissue with hyaline degeneration surrounded the cavity where the HA had existed. Multinuclear giant cells and lymphocytes infiltrated some parts of the marginal layer of the cavity, and no obvious bony bridge had regenerated from autologous bone. No tartrate-resistant acid phosphate (TRAP) -positive osteoclasts could be seen in the new bone, suggesting that the activity of osteoclasts in the new bone decreased during the seven years after the primary surgery.
The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/3483360258050263
KeywordsNonunion Lumbar spine Intertransverse fusion Hydroxyapatite
Since the first report in 1953, lumbar posterolateral intertransverse fusion has been most commonly performed for patients with lumbar instability and has been reported to achieve successful union and clinical outcomes [1–5]. Recently, hydroxyapatite (HA) has been used as a substitute for autologous bone graft, and there have been no detailed reports of failure of intertransverse fusion with HA [6, 7].
There have been few reports of long-term follow-up in cases of intertransverse fusion with granules of HA. It is reported that macrophages responding to HA particles are capable of osteoclast differentiation, and new bone formation occurs between and within HA granules when bone union is successful . In the present case, histological findings showed that formation of osteoclasts did not continue and that activity of these cells ceased within seven years. This was accompanied by insufficient bone formation from failure of coupled remodeling. On the other hand, in some parts of the marginal layer of the cavity, multinuclear giant cells and lymphocytes were observed, partially forming a foreign body granuloma. These cells are usually observed with HA, but few inflammatory reaction was observed in the whole tissue which was resected, indicating patient’s pain was not induced by inflammation of the transplanted tissue, but might be induced by another unstable structures including the intervertebral discs or facet joints [9–11]. Motomiya et al . reported the bony bridge which is achieved within autologous bone graft may be formed more easily and earlier than bone ingrowth to HA, but no obvious bony bridge which regenerated from autologous bone was seen in the present case. The exact pathomechanism for nonunion is unclear, but for spinal fusion, factors in the host (e.g., nutrition, age, smoking, mechanical stress), in biology (type or quality of bone graft, fusion site preparation, internal fixation), or in postoperative care (activity level, external immobilization) are reported to affect the union success rate in both human and animal studies [13, 14]. These complex factors might influence bone formation and may have induced failure of the intertransverse fusion.
Also, preparation of fusion site might be insufficient in this case. More careful preparation of the soft tissue bed or bone surface onto which the graft material is placed might be necessary, the importance of which is indicated in previous reports [15, 16].
Recently, many factors (e.g., growth factor, bone morphogenetic protein) that stimulate bone formation have been investigated as a substitute for autologous bone graft, but these kinds of bone substitutes are still prohibited for spine surgery in Japan [17, 18]. So, most bone substitutes that are used in Japan are HA and β-tricalcium phosphate, which can provide a scaffold for new bone formation. Because fusion status is critical to achieve good post-operative results, research in failed cases is very important . Further understanding of the causes and mechanisms of nonunion are important to achieve higher union rates and to avoid poor clinical results in patients after surgery.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for publication of this case report and any accompanying images.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
- Bjarke Christensen F, Stender Hansen E, Laursen M, Thomsen K, Bunger CE: Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine. 2002, 27: 1269-1277. 10.1097/00007632-200206150-00006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, Cain JE, Glover JM, Lawson KJ, Coe JD, Topper SM: A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine. 1999, 24: 553-560. 10.1097/00007632-199903150-00010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Korsgaard M, Christensen FB, Thomsen K, Hansen ES, Bunger C: The influence of lumbar lordosis on spinal fusion and functional outcome after posterolateral spinal fusion with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002, 15: 187-192. 10.1097/00024720-200206000-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bunger CE: Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine. 1997, 22: 2813-2822. 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Watkins MB: Posterolateral fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953, 35: 1014-1018.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gupta MC, Maitra S: Bone grafts and bone morphogenetic proteins in spine fusion. Cell Tissue Bank. 2002, 3: 255-267. 10.1023/A:1024605128411.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spivak JM, Hasharoni A: Use of hydroxyapatite in spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2001, 10: S197-204. 10.1007/s005860100286.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sabokbar A, Pandey R, Diaz J, Quinn JM, Murray DW, Athanasou NA: Hydroxyapatite particles are capable of inducing osteoclast formation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001, 12: 659-664. 10.1023/A:1011267005465.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zenmyo M, Yamamoto T, Ishidou Y, Komiya S, Ijiri K: Osteoid osteoma near the intervertebral foramen may induce radiculopathy through tumorous inflammation. Diagn Pathol. 2011, 6: 10-10.1186/1746-1596-6-10.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Panelos J, Voulgaris S, Michos E, Doukas M, Charalabopoulos K, Batistatou A: Chondrosarcoma of the spine: a rare case with unusual presentation. Diagn Pathol. 2006, 1: 39-10.1186/1746-1596-1-39.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ghanaati S, Barbeck M, Detsch R, Deisinger U, Hilbig U, Rausch V, Sader R, Unger RE, Ziegler G, Kirkpatrick CJ: The chemical composition of synthetic bone substitutes influences tissue reactions in vivo: histological and histomorphometrical analysis of the cellular inflammatory response to hydroxyapatite, beta-tricalcium phosphate and biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics. Biomed Mater. 2012, 7: 015005-10.1088/1748-6041/7/1/015005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Motomiya M, Ito M, Takahata M, Kadoya K, Irie K, Abumi K, Minami A: Effect of Hydroxyapatite porous characteristics on healing outcomes in rabbit posterolateral spinal fusion model. Eur Spine J. 2007, 16: 2215-2224. 10.1007/s00586-007-0501-0.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boden SD, Sumner DR: Biologic factors affecting spinal fusion and bone regeneration. Spine. 1995, 20: 102S-112S. 10.1097/00007632-199512151-00006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Holmes R, Hagler H: Porous hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute in maxillary augmentation. An histometric study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1988, 16: 199-205.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Allen BL, Ferguson RL: The operative treatment of myelomeningocele spinal deformity--1979. Orthop Clin North Am. 1979, 10: 845-862.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hurley LA, Stinchfield FE, Bassett AL, Lyon WH: The role of soft tissues in osteogenesis. An experimental study of canine spine fusions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959, 41: 1243-1254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cowan CM, Soo C, Ting K, Wu B: Evolving concepts in bone tissue engineering. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2005, 66: 239-285.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Samartzis D, Khanna N, Shen FH, An HS: Update on bone morphogenetic proteins and their application in spine surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2005, 200: 236-248. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.09.046.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Yoshimura Y, Misawa H: Union versus nonunion after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a comparison of long-term surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2008, 17: 1107-1112. 10.1007/s00586-008-0695-9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.