Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2025

1 result

Bone Optimization for Perioperative Spine Patients: A Multidisciplinary Approach at a Single Academic Center.

Suarez-Nieto MV, Malacon K, Fox A, Lopez Isidro MC, Wadhwa H, Hu SS, Zygourakis CC

Journal of clinical medicine15 Dec 2025Cited by 1 (Europe PMC)

Summary

Background: Osteoporosis and low bone mineral density are highly prevalent among patients undergoing spinal fusion, contributing to higher rates of hardware failure, revision surgery, and poor postoperative outcomes. Despite clear risks, perioperative screening and treatment for osteoporosis remain inconsistent. Bone Health Clinics (BHCs) and Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs) have emerged as multidisciplinary models to address this care gap. We describe the implementation of a dedicated BHC at a single academic center and evaluate perioperative pharmacotherapy patterns, treatment barriers, and surgical outcomes among spine patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 174 consecutive perioperative spine patients referred to our institutional BHC between October 2019 and April 2024. Demographics, surgical characteristics, bone health status, laboratory and DXA results, pharmacologic management, contraindications, insurance-related barriers, and medication sequencing were collected. Surgical outcomes included hardware failure and revision surgery. Bone health response was assessed by follow-up DXA scans. Results: The cohort was predominantly female (78.2%) with a mean age of 71.9 years. Most patients were referred by neurosurgery (53.4%) or orthopedics (41.4%). Based on DXA and fragility fracture history, 27.0% had osteopenia, 56.3% osteoporosis, and 13.8% severe osteoporosis. Pharmacotherapy was prescribed in 146 patients (83.9%), most commonly romosozumab (32.9%), denosumab (22.6%), and abaloparatide (21.2%). Twenty-eight patients (16.1%) did not receive medication, primarily due to contraindications. Insurance-related barriers disproportionately affected anabolic agents, whereas denosumab had the lowest denial rate (15.2%, p = 0.0124). Sequential therapy was common (32.1%), most frequently romosozumab followed by denosumab. Hardware failure occurred in 11.5% of patients, with 5.7% requiring revision surgery. Among the 80 patients (46.0%) with follow-up DXA, 60% demonstrated improved bone mineral density, with an average T-score gain of 0.6 ± 0.5. Conclusions: Integration of a multidisciplinary BHC into perioperative spine care was feasible, associated with high rates of pharmacotherapy initiation, and demonstrated favorable early surgical outcomes compared to published complication rates in this population. Insurance and contraindications remain key barriers to anabolic therapy access, driving prescribing toward denosumab. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the impact of perioperative bone optimization on surgical durability, cost-effectiveness, and patient-centered outcomes.
CC BYText from Europe PMC. Highlighted sentences are the source of results.

Results from this study1

No result from this study comes from a test of the peptide.

Studies that did not test the peptide alone1

In this study, Abaloparatide (Tymlos) was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. These results are not evidence about taking Abaloparatide (Tymlos).

  1. 01HumanNot a test of Abaloparatide (Tymlos) aloneObservational studyOther

    In a perioperative spine clinic cohort, abaloparatide accounted for a reported prescribing proportion of 21.2%.

    In plain wordsIn a spine clinic cohort, the reported abaloparatide prescribing proportion was 21.2%.

    Outcome
    Not applicableAbaloparatide prescribing
    Study

    n = 174

    Outcome group
    Patterns of use · Musculoskeletal

    Measurements

    Abaloparatide prescribing
    21.2%
    clinic cohort

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Pharmacotherapy was prescribed in 146 patients (83.9%), most commonly romosozumab (32.9%), denosumab (22.6%), and abaloparatide (21.2%).
    1 context sentence
    Summary · context
    We retrospectively reviewed 174 consecutive perioperative spine patients referred to our institutional BHC between October 2019 and April 2024.

    In this study, Abaloparatide (Tymlos) was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Abaloparatide (Tymlos).

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

  1. Version 2Current

    22 Oct 2026, 02:25 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 1

    21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.