Extravasation of rhBMP-2 With Use of Postoperative Drains After Posterolateral Spinal Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective measurement of rhBMP-2 from drains in a cohort of patients undergoing posterolateral spinal fusion. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the amount of rhBMP-2 that extravasates into drains after posterolateral fusion using its current commercially available form, rhBMP-2 within an absorbable collagen sponge. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Retention of rhBMP-2 at the fusion site is essential for clinical efficacy and avoidance of unintentional bony growth in other areas of the spine. In vitro studies have shown a large degree of rhBMP-2 release from the sponge within the first 48 hours. It is unknown what effect drainage may have on changing the local concentration of BMP at the posterolateral site. METHODS: The entire contents of drains were collected for 48 hours after surgery from 9 patients who underwent instrumented posterolateral fusion with rhBMP-2. The total amount collected was calculated from the concentration of BMP-2 as measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: A median 68 microg of BMP-2 (range, 13-498) was recovered from drains, representing a median 0.58% (range, 0.21%-4.2%) of the amount implanted; adjusted for yield rate, a median 1.08% was recovered. No significant relationships were found between percentage of BMP-2 extravasation and amount implanted, number of levels, blood loss, and drainage output. A mean 54% of the total amount recovered was in the drain within the first 6 hours. CONCLUSION: The greater bleeding and muscular compression associated with posterolateral fusion did not result in a substantial amount of rhBMP-2 extravasation into postoperative drains. Based on the small rates of recovery, suction drains may be placed after even complex surgeries involving large blood loss without the loss of significant amounts of the implanted rhBMP-2 into the drain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".