Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 489

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence, Complications, and Hospital Charges Associated With Use of Bone-Morphogenetic Proteins in Spinal Fusion Procedures

Cahill, Kevin S.·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: No national data exist to examine use of bone-morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) in spinal fusion surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine the patterns of use and rates of complications and financial charges associated with BMP use in spinal fusion nationally. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of 328,468 patients undergoing spinal fusion procedures from 2002-2006 identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, a 20% sample of US community hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The rates of use of BMP among patients undergoing spinal fusion procedures are examined along with complications, length of stay, and hospital charges associated with use of this fusion adjunct. RESULTS: The nationwide usage of BMP has increased from 0.69% of all fusions in 2002 to 24.89% of all fusions in 2006. Use of BMP varied by patient sex, race, and primary payer with increased use seen in women (56.26% with BMP vs 53.35% without BMP; odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval, [CI], 1.09-1.16) and Medicare patients (29.62% with BMP vs 27.16% without BMP; OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31-1.56) and decreased use in nonwhite patients (8.69% with BMP vs 10.23% without BMP; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85). When comparing immediate postoperative, in-hospital rates of complications for the year 2006 among patients undergoing spinal fusion by BMP use status, no differences were seen for lumbar, thoracic, or posterior cervical procedures. On univariate analysis and after multivariable adjustment, the use of BMP in anterior cervical fusion procedures was associated with a higher rate of complication occurrence (7.09% with BMP vs 4.68% without BMP; adjusted OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70) with the primary increases seen in wound-related complications (1.22% with BMP vs 0.65% without BMP; adjusted OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.10- 2.53) and dysphagia or hoarseness (4.35% with BMP vs 2.45% without BMP; adjusted OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.30-2.05). Bone-morphogenetic protein use was associated with greater inpatient hospital charges across all categories of fusion. Increases between 11% and 41% of total hospital charges were reported, with the greatest percentage increase seen for anterior cervical fusion. CONCLUSION: Bone-morphogenetic protein was used in approximately 25% of all spinal fusions nationally in 2006, with use associated with more frequent complications for anterior cervical fusions and with greater hospital charges for all categories of fusions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.956

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 489

Metadata

Authors
Cahill, K. S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-07-01
Volume
302
Issue
1
Pages
58
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2060910232
Cited by
489
References
2
FWCI
24.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence, Complications, and Hospital Charges Associated With Use of Bone-Morphogenetic Proteins in Spinal Fusion Procedures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.956
The paper
Cahill, K. S. (2009). Prevalence, Complications, and Hospital Charges Associated With Use of Bone-Morphogenetic Proteins in Spinal Fusion Procedures. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.956

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.