Evidence Hub

Costs and outcomes of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) usage in single level posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in a propensity score matched national, retrospective cohort

Austin R. Chen, Jacob W. McDevitt, Parth Desai, Cade F. Bennett, A. T. Pickens, Theodore A. Joaquin, Kranti C. Rumalla, Mark A. Plantz et al.

The spine journal, 2026

9,457 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is widely used in posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (P/TLIF). While rhBMP-2 demonstrates comparable fusion rates to autologous iliac crest bone graft (AICBG), its high cost brings into question its long-term cost effectiveness. This question is particularly pertinent in single-level P/TLIF where AICBG achieves excellent fusion rates.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the costs associated with and clinical outcomes of rhBMP-2 versus non-rhBMP-2 usage in single-level P/TLIF using a propensity score-matched national sample.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study using the Premier Healthcare claims database (2016-2022).

PATIENT SAMPLE

National sample of 9,457 patients who underwent single-level P/TLIF with rhBMP-2 utilization who were one-to-one matched with 9,457 P/TLIF patients without rhBMP-2 based on demographics, Elixhauser comorbidities, and surgical indications.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary economic outcomes were index encounter costs by category, and 2-year cumulative post-discharge costs. Primary clinical outcomes were 90-day readmission and 2-year revision fusion incidence. Secondary clinical outcomes were 2-year revision decompression incidence, pseudoarthrosis, seroma, infection, and implant complications.

METHODS

Single level P/TLIF procedures were identified via billing codes for the procedure. rhBMP-2 usage was identified via identification in the itemized…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 9,457 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free