Fusion filler: Which is preferable, own bone or ???

[Katie]

I will likely have some kind of fusion down the road, in my lumbar and/or the cervical levels.

What I'd like to know is which is preferable as a patient, having bone taken from your own hip, using the synthetic material, or bone from a cadaver or bovine, etc.?

I am really reluctant to have a second large incision in my hip, both because of the pain and because of the risk of infection. Every time I've had other surgery in the past, I've had to deal with that. But did I read somewhere that the 'fake' bone material had its own problems?

The last surgeon I saw said that his hospital would not pay for anything but the patient's own hip bone, but where I will most likely go in the other province, I may have more choices.

I know this is probably the wrong forum for this thread, but wasn't sure where it really belonged. Feel free to move it, Justin

[willing for adr]

Hi Katie I'm not sure if this helps. I was researching and come across on study done on Pubmed (Spine J. 2003 Nov-Dec; 3(6):451-9)that compares the use of your own bone(allograft)or cadaver bone(autograft). The study indicated that there is no significant difference in fusion rate between the two. Out of 80 patients 78 fused. 45 patients were allograft and 35 patients were autograft.The two that didn't fuse were autograft but the study pointed to Nonsegmentel screws were used. I'm not sure about the other technique.

I hope this helps. I have only been researching for a couple of weeks so I'm not sure of all the studies that are out there. I know the surgeon who wants to perform multi-level fusion on me would use cadaver bone.

The upside as you well know is no additional surgery on your iliac crest.

I appreciate your responses. If you would like I could try to send you the link for the report. Take Care. Kent