Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.

A literature review of bone graft substitutes for spinal fusion was undertaken from peer reviewed journals to form a basis for guidelines on their clinical use. A PubMed search of peer reviewed journals between Jan 1960 and Dec 2009 for clinical trials of bone graft substitutes in spinal fusion was performed. Emphasis was placed on RCTs. Small and duplicated RCTs were excluded. If no RCTs were available the next best clinical evidence was assessed. Data were extracted for fusion rates and complications. Of 929 potential spinal fusion studies, 7 RCTs met the inclusion criteria for BMP-2, 3 for BMP-7, 2 for Tricalcium Phosphate and 1 for Tricalcium Phosphate/Hydroxyapatite (TCP/HA). No clinical RCTs were found for Demineralised Bone Matrix (DBM), Calcium Sulphate or Calcium Silicate. There is strong evidence that BMP-2 with TCP/HA achieves similar or higher spinal fusion rates than autograft alone. BMP-7 achieved similar results to autograft. 3 RCTs support the use of TCP or TCP/HA and autograft as a graft extender with similar results to autograft alone. The best clinical evidence to support the use of DBMs are case control studies. The osteoinductive potential of DBM appears to be very low however. There are no clinical studies to support the use of Calcium Silicate. The current literature supports the use of BMP-2 with HA/TCP as a graft substitute. TCP or HA/TCP with Autograft is supported as a graft extender. There is not enough clinical evidence to support other bone graft substitutes. This study did not require ethics approval and no financial support was received