Logo do repositório
 
Publicação

Biomaterials for vertebral body repair

2026-05-31Recensão Acesso aberto
Ver registo simples
dc.contributor.authorMoura, Diogo Lino
dc.contributor.authorCasal, Diogo
dc.contributor.authorLourenço, Paulo
dc.contributor.authorJardim, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorFonseca, Fernando
dc.contributor.authorCasanova, José
dc.contributor.authorBernardes, António
dc.contributor.institutionNOVA Medical School|Faculdade de Ciências Médicas (NMS|FCM)
dc.contributor.pblAME Publishing Company
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-30T10:09:01Z
dc.date.available2026-06-30T10:09:01Z
dc.date.issued2026-05-31
dc.descriptionPublisher Copyright: © AME Publishing Company.
dc.description.abstractBackground and Objective: Vertebral body repair comprises surgical procedures aimed at restoring height and stability of injured vertebrae, thereby re-establishing spinal structural integrity and load-bearing function. Bone fusion and biomaterial incorporation or integration are key determinants of long-term clinical outcomes, providing biological stability. The ideal biomaterial for vertebral body repair remains undefined. Despite the increasing number of available materials, achieving an optimal balance between mechanical load-bearing capacity and biological potential for progressive bone substitution—key requirements for restoring spinal biomechanics—remains a major challenge. Therefore, this narrative review examines biomaterials used in vertebral body repair, with emphasis on bone fusion outcomes. Methods: A literature review of MEDLINE/PubMed was performed using two separate searches: one on vertebral body augmentation and another on total vertebral body replacement. Original clinical studies involving the mobile spine reporting bone fusion outcomes were included, whereas studies with unclear methods for assessing bone healing were excluded. Key Content and Findings: Among the vertebral augmentation fillers analyzed, the most notable were bioactive bone cements, including calcium phosphate (16 studies), calcium sulfate (6 studies), and composite cements (3 studies). Regarding total vertebral body replacement, the most commonly reported implants were titanium mesh cages (85 studies), with bone fusion rates (BFRs) of 70–100%, and expandable titanium cages (58 studies), with BFRs ranging from 23.5% to 100% across various conditions. Other notable materials included bioactive ceramics (4 studies, 95–100%), carbon fiber (3 studies, 80–97.5%), thermoplastic polymers (8 studies, 70–100%), and carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs) (2 studies, 100%). Porous metallic static cages (8 studies) exhibited BFRs of 76.9–100%, whereas nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 (HA/PA66) cages (13 studies) showed BFRs ranging from 72.7% to 100%. Benefits and limitations of each biomaterial used in vertebral body repair were summarized and discussed.en
dc.description.versionpublishersversion
dc.description.versionpublished
dc.format.extent1500340
dc.identifier.doi10.21037/jss-2025-1-250
dc.identifier.issn2414-469X
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 166196218
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 9ab4dd3a-826c-4c82-a869-8acd4f8b765d
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 105042367729
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10362/204185
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105042367729
dc.language.isoeng
dc.peerreviewedyes
dc.subjectBiomaterial
dc.subjectbone fusion
dc.subjectosseointegration
dc.subjectrepair
dc.subjectvertebral body
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.subjectOrthopedics and Sports Medicine
dc.titleBiomaterials for vertebral body repairen
dc.title.subtitleinterior augmentation and total replacement—a literature review of bone fusion outcomes in clinical studiesen
dc.typereview
degois.publication.issue5
degois.publication.titleJournal of Spine Surgery
degois.publication.volume12
dspace.entity.typePublication
rcaap.rightsopenAccess

Ficheiros

Principais
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nome:
7885-PB4-2182-R1.pdf
Tamanho:
1.43 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Ver/Abrir

Coleções

NMS - Artigos em revista internacional com arbitragem científica