Aims. Autologous bone graft (ABG) is considered the ‘gold standard’ among graft materials for bone regeneration. However, complications including limited availability, donor site morbidity, and deterioration of regenerative capacity over time have been reported. P-15 is a synthetic peptide that mimics the cell binding domain of Type-I collagen. This peptide stimulates new bone formation by enhancing osteogenic cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of P-15 peptide in bone regeneration throughout the skeletal system. Methods. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles on 13 May 2023. The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the identified articles. Quality assessment was conducted using the methodological index for non-randomized studies and the risk of bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials. Results. After screening, 28 articles were included and grouped by surgical indication, e.g. maxillofacial procedures (n = 18), spine (n = 9), and trauma (n = 1). Published results showed that P-15 peptide was effective in spinal fusion (n = 7) and maxillofacial (n = 11), with very few clinically relevant adverse events related to P-15 peptide. Conclusion. This systematic literature review concluded that moderate- (risk of bias, some concern: 50%) to high-quality (risk of bias, low: 46%) clinical evidence exists showing equivalent safety and efficacy in bone regeneration using a P-15 peptide enhanced bone graft substitute compared to ABG. P-15 peptide is safe and effective, resulting in rapid bone formation with a low probability of minor complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2025;14(2):77–92

Aims. There is inconsistent evidence on whether prior spinal fusion surgery adversely impacts outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between pre-existing spinal fusion surgery and the rate of complications following primary THA. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to October 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of dislocation, revision, or reasons for revision in patients following primary THA with or without pre-existing spinal fusion surgery. Furthermore, we compared short (two or less levels) or long (three or more levels) spinal fusions to no fusion. Summary measures of association were relative risks (RRs) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). Results. We identified ten articles corresponding to nine unique observational studies comprising of 1,992,366 primary THAs. No RCTs were identified. There were 32,945 cases of spinal fusion and 1,752,362 non-cases. Comparing prior spinal fusion versus no spinal fusion in primary THA, RRs (95% CI) for dislocation was 2.23 (1.81 to 2.74; seven studies), revision 2.14 (1.63 to 2.83; five studies), periprosthetic joint infection 1.71 (1.53 to 1.92; four studies), periprosthetic fracture 1.52 (1.28 to 1.81; three studies), aseptic loosening 1.76 (1.54 to 2.01; three studies), and any complications 2.82 (1.37 to 5.80; three studies) were identified. Both short and long spinal fusions, when compared with no fusion, were associated dislocation, revision, or reasons for revision. Conclusions. Patients with prior spinal fusion are at risk of adverse events following primary THA. Measures that reduce the risk of these complications should be considered in this high-risk population when undergoing primary THA. These patients should also be counselled appropriately around their risks of undergoing THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):664–670