Objectives. The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess the clinical level of evidence of commercially available demineralised bone matrix (DBM) products for their use in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery. Methods. A total of 17 DBM products were used as search terms in two available databases: Embase and PubMed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement. All articles that reported the clinical use of a DBM-product in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery were included. Results. The literature search resulted in 823 manuscripts of which 64 manuscripts met the final inclusion criteria. The included manuscripts consisted of four randomised controlled trials (level I), eight cohort studies (level III) and 49 case-series (level IV). No clinical studies were found for ten DBM products, and most DBM products were only used in combination with other grafting materials. DBM products were most extensively investigated in spinal surgery, showing limited level I evidence that supports the use Grafton DBM (Osteotech, Eatontown, New Jersey) as a bone graft extender in posterolateral lumbar fusion surgery. DBM products are not thoroughly investigated in trauma surgery, showing mainly level IV evidence that supports the use of Allomatrix (Wright Medical, London, United Kingdom), DBX (DePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland), Grafton DBM, or OrthoBlast (Citagenix Laval, Canada) as bone graft extenders. Conclusions. The clinical level of evidence that supports the use of DBM in trauma and orthopaedic surgery is limited and consists mainly of poor quality and retrospective case-series. More prospective, randomised controlled trials are needed to understand the clinical effect and impact of DBM in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: J. van der Stok, K. A. Hartholt, D. A. L. Schoenmakers, J. J. C. Arts. The available evidence on demineralised bone matrix in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: A systemati c review. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:423–432. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0027.R1

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.