Allogenic Stem Cells in Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review

AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases

STUDY DESIGN

Guideline.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an international guideline (AOGO) about the use of osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative spine conditions.

METHODS

The guideline development process was guided by AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative (KF Degen) and followed the Guideline International Network McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. The process involved 73 participants with expertise in degenerative spine diseases and surgery from 22 countries. Fifteen systematic reviews were conducted addressing respective key topics and evidence was collected. The methodologist compiled the evidence into GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. Guideline panel members judged the outcomes and other criteria and made the final recommendations through consensus.

RESULTS

Five conditional recommendations were created. A conditional recommendation is about the use of allograft, autograft or a cage with an osteobiologic in primary ACDF surgery. Other conditional recommendations are about the use of osteobiologic for single- or multi-level ACDF, and for hybrid construct surgery. It is suggested that surgeons use other osteobiologics rather than human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) in common clinical situations. Surgeons are recommended to choose 1 graft over another or 1 osteobiologic over another primarily based on clinical situation, and the costs and availability of the materials.

CONCLUSION

This AOGO guideline is the first to provide recommendations for the use of osteobiologics in ACDF. Despite the comprehensive searches for evidence, there were few studies completed with small sample sizes and primarily as case series with inherent risks of bias. Therefore, high-quality clinical evidence is demanded to improve the guideline.

12-Month clinical and radiographic outcomes of ViBone viable bone matrix in patients undergoing cervical and lumbar spinal fusion surgery

BACKGROUND

To investigate the clinical safety and efficacy of ViBone^® Viable Bone Matrix (VBM), a next generation cellular bone matrix allograft that comprises all three essential bone-forming components: osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive factors, and is optimized to enhance cell viability and bone formation.

METHODS

This was a multi-center, prospective, post-market study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ViBone VBM in patients undergoing 1-3 level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up clinically and radiographically. Clinical assessment included Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS-pain), the Neck Disability Index (NDI) for patients with cervical pathologies, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for patients with lumbar pathologies. Fusion success defined by an independent radiologist was determined radiographically by plain films.

RESULTS

Clinical outcomes evaluated with VAS-pain, NDI, and ODI scales were improved significantly at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline. All patients reached clinically significant improvements at 12 months. There were no adverse events or infections attributed to ViBone VBM. At 12 months, the fusion rate per patient was 88.1% in cervical and 97.6% in lumbar patients, while per-level fusion was 98.5% for cervical and 100% for lumbar segments.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing cervical and lumbar spinal fusion implanted with ViBone VBM demonstrated favorable outcomes at 6 months and 12 months as measured by subjective clinical measures and radiographic fusion rates. Trial registration This study was registered as NCT03425682 on 1/29/2018.

Is Platelet-Rich Plasma Effective in Enhancing Spinal Fusion? Systematic Overview of Overlapping Meta-Analyses

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

We performed this systematic overview on overlapping meta-analyses that analyzed the role of platelet-rich plasma(PRP) in enhancing spinal fusion and identify which study provides the current best evidence on the topic and generate recommendations for the same.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects till October-2020 for meta-analyses that analyzed the role of PRP in spinal fusion procedures. Methodological quality assessment was made using Oxford Levels of Evidence, AMSTAR scoring, and AMSTAR 2 grades. We then utilized the Jadad decision algorithm to identify the study with highest quality to represent the current best evidence to generate recommendations.

RESULTS

3 meta-analyses fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included. The AMSTAR scores of included studies varied from 5-8(mean:6.3) and all included studies had critically low reliability in their summary of results due to their methodological flaws according to AMSTAR 2 grades. The current best evidence showed that utilization of PRP was not associated with significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes such as Visual Analog Score for pain compared to the standard fusion procedure. Moreover, PRP was found to be associated with lower fusion rates.

CONCLUSION

Based on this systematic overview, the effectiveness of PRP as a biological agent in augmenting spinal fusion is limited. Current evidence does not support the use of PRP as an adjuvant to enhance spinal fusion.

A Review of Commercially Available Cellular-based Allografts

STUDY DESIGN

This was a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses our current knowledge regarding cellular-based allografts while highlighting the key gaps in the literature that must be addressed before their widespread adoption.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Iliac crest bone graft is the gold-standard bone graft material but is associated with donor site morbidity. Commonly utilized bone graft extenders such as demineralized bone matrix and bone morphogenetic protein have conflicting data supporting their efficacy and lack the osteogenic potential of new cellular-based allograft options.

METHODS

An extensive literature review was performed. The literature was then summarized in accordance with the authors' clinical experience.

RESULTS

There is not widespread evidence thus far that the addition of the osteogenic cellular component to allograft enhances spinal fusion, as a recent study by Bhamb and colleagues demonstrated superior bone formation during spine fusion in an aythmic rat model when demineralized bone matrix was used in comparison to Osteocel Plus. Furthermore, the postimplantation cellular viability and osteogenic and osteoinductive capacity of cellular-based allografts need to be definitively established, especially given that a recent study by Lina and colleagues demonstrated a paucity of bone marrow cell survival in an immunocompetent mouse posterolateral spinal fusion model.

CONCLUSIONS

This data indicates that the substantially increased cost of these cellular allografts may not be justified.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review

Objective

With the advances in biological technologies over the past 20 years, a number of new therapies to promote bone healing have been introduced. Particularly in the spinal surgery field, more unprecedented biological therapeutics become available to enhance spinal fusion success rate along with advanced instrumentation approaches. Yet surgeons may not have been well informed about their safety and efficacy profiles in order to improve clinical practices. Therefore there is a need to summarize the evidence and bring the latest progress to surgeons for better clinical services for patients.

Methods

We comprehensively reviewed the literatures in regard to the biological therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion published in the last two decades.

Results

Autograft bone is still the gold standard for bone grafting in spinal fusion surgery due to its good osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic abilities. Accumulating evidence suggests that adding rhBMPs in combination with autograft effectively promotes the fusion rate and improves surgical outcomes. However, the stimulating effect on spinal fusion of other growth factors, including PDGF, VEGF, TGF-beta, and FGF, is not convincing, while Nell-1 and activin A exhibited preliminary efficacy. In terms of systemic therapeutic approaches, the osteoporosis drug Teriparatide has played a positive role in promoting bone healing after spinal surgery, while new medications such as denosumab and sclerostin antibodies still need further validation. Currently, other treatment, such as controlled-release formulations and carriers, are being studied for better releasing profile and the administration convenience of the active ingredients.

Conclusion

As the world's population continues to grow older, the number of spinal fusion cases grows substantially due to increased surgical needs for spinal degenerative disease (SDD). Critical advancements in biological therapeutics that promote spinal fusion have brought better clinical outcomes to patients lately. With the accumulation of higher-level evidence, the safety and efficacy of present and emerging products are becoming more evident. These emerging therapeutics will shift the landscape of perioperative therapy for the enhancement of spinal fusion.

Effect of age on outcomes after allogeneic disc tissue supplementation in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain in the VAST trial

Aim: To explore the effects of viable allogeneic disc tissue supplementation in younger patients with discogenic chronic low back pain (CLBP). Patients & methods: VAST was a randomized placebo-controlled trial of disc allograft supplementation in 218 patients with discogenic CLBP. We conducted a post hoc analysis of change from baseline to 12 months in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale for pain intensity scores stratified by patient age. Results: Patients aged <42 years receiving allograft experienced greater improvement in ODI (p = 0.042) and a higher ODI response rate (≥10-, ≥15- and ≥20-point reductions in ODI) than those receiving saline (p = 0.001, p = 0.002 and p = 0.021, respectively). Conclusion: Young patients with discogenic CLBP may have significant functional improvement following nonsurgical disc allograft supplementation.

Use of Autologous Stem Cells in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review of Current Clinical Evidence

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review, critically appraise and synthesize evidence on use of autologous stem cells sources for fusion in the lumbar spine.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 20, 2020 was conducted comparing autologous cell grafts to other biologics for lumbar spine fusion. The focus was on studies comparing distinct patient groups.

RESULTS

From 343 potentially relevant citations, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria set a priori. Seven studies compared distinct patient groups, with BMA being used in combination with allograft or autograft not as a standalone material. No economic evaluations were identified. Most observational studies were at moderately high risk of bias. When used for primary lumbar fusion, no statistical differences in outcomes or complications were seen between BMA+autograft/or +allograft compared to autograft/allograft alone. Compared with allograft, data from a RCT suggested statistically better fusion and lower complication rates with concentrated BMA+allograft. When used in revisions, no differences in outcomes were seen between BMA+allograft and either autograft or rh-BMP-2 but fusion rates were lower with BMA+allograft, leading to additional revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial heterogeneity across studies in patient populations, sample size, biologic combinations, and surgical characteristics making direct comparisons difficult. The overall quality of evidence for fusion rates and the safety of BMA in lumbar fusion procedures was considered very low, with studies being at moderately high or high risk of bias.

The Impact of Osteobiologic Subtype Selection on Perioperative Complications and Hospital-Reported Charges in Single- and Multi-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

Over the last several decades, various osteobiologics including allograft, synthetics, and growth factors have been used for lumbar spinal fusion surgery. However, the data on these osteobiologic products remain controversial with conflicting evidence in the literature. This study evaluates the influence of osteobiologic type selection on perioperative complications and hospital-reported charges in single-level and multilevel lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Using the 2016 and 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 125,143 patients who received lumbar fusion with either autologous tissue substitute, nonautologous tissue substitute, or synthetic substitute. This cohort was split into single-level and multilevel fusion procedures, and one-to-one age and sex propensity score matching was implemented. This resulted in cohorts each consisting of 1967 patients for single-level fusion, and cohorts each consisting of 1657 patients for multilevel fusion. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons of means.

RESULTS

Autologous single-level fusion resulted in significantly more postoperative pain at 30-, 90-, and 180-day follow-up compared to fusion with nonautologous graft (P < .05). Multilevel fusion with autologous graft had higher rates of acute postsurgical anemia compared with synthetic (P = .021) and nonautologous (P = .016) alternatives, and less postsurgical infection when compared with nonautologous fusion (P = .0020). In addition, procedures using autologous osteobiologics were associated with significantly more neurological complications at 30 days (P = .049) and 90 days (P = .048) for multi-level fusion and at 30 days (P = .044) for single-level fusion compared with the nonautologous group. Lastly, for both cohorts, the total accrued inpatient hospital charges during admission for patients receiving nonautologous grafts were the most expensive and those for patients receiving autologous grafts were the least expensive.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences were found between the groups with respect to rates of complications, including infection, postoperative pain, and neurologic injury. Furthermore, the hospital-reported charges of each procedure varied significantly. As the field of biologics continues to expand, it is important to continually evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of these novel materials and techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With increased utilization of osteobiologics and spinal fusion being a common procedure, longitudinal data on readmissions, and post-operative complications are critical in guiding evidence-based practice.

Investigating the efficacy of allograft cellular bone matrix for spinal fusion: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

The use of allograft cellular bone matrices (ACBMs) in spinal fusion has expanded rapidly over the last decade. Despite little objective data on its effectiveness, ACBM use has replaced the use of traditional autograft techniques, namely iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), in many centers.

METHODS

In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases of English-language articles over the time period from January 2001 to December 2020 to objectively assess the effectiveness of ACBMs, with an emphasis on the level of industry involvement in the current body of literature.

RESULTS

Limited animal studies (n = 5) demonstrate the efficacy of ACBMs in spinal fusion, with either equivalent or increased rates of fusion compared to autograft. Clinical human studies utilizing ACBMs as bone graft expanders or bone graft substitutes (n = 5 for the cervical spine and n = 8 for the lumbar spine) demonstrate the safety of ACBMs in spinal fusion, but fail to provide conclusive level I, II, or III evidence for its efficacy. Additionally, human studies are plagued with several limiting factors, such as small sample size, lack of prospective design, lack of randomization, absence of standardized assessment of fusion, and presence of industry support/relevant conflict of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

There exist very few objective, unbiased human clinical studies demonstrating ACBM effectiveness or superiority in spinal fusion. Impartial, well-designed prospective studies are needed to offer evidence-based best practices to patients in this domain.

Cellular allograft for multilevel stand-alone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

OBJECTIVE

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the most common treatment for degenerative disease of the cervical spine. Given the high rate of pseudarthrosis in multilevel stand-alone ACDF, there is a need to explore the utility of novel grafting materials. In this study, the authors present a single-institution retrospective study of patients with multilevel degenerative spine disease who underwent multilevel stand-alone ACDF surgery with or without cellular allograft supplementation.

METHODS

In a prospectively collected database, 28 patients who underwent multilevel ACDF supplemented with cellular allograft (ViviGen) and 25 patients who underwent multilevel ACDF with decellularized allograft between 2014 and 2020 were identified. The primary outcome was radiographic fusion determined by a 1-year follow-up CT scan. Secondary outcomes included change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores and change in visual analog scale scores for neck and arm pain.

RESULTS

The study included 53 patients with a mean age of 53 ± 0.7 years who underwent multilevel stand-alone ACDF encompassing 2.6 ± 0.7 levels on average. Patient demographics were similar between the two cohorts. In the cellular allograft cohort, 2 patients experienced postoperative dysphagia that resolved by the 3-month follow-up. One patient developed cervical radiculopathy due to graft subsidence and required a posterior foraminotomy. At the 1-year CT, successful fusion was achieved in 92.9% (26/28) of patients who underwent ACDF supplemented with cellular allograft, compared with 84.0% (21/25) of patients who underwent ACDF without cellular allograft. The cellular allograft cohort experienced a significantly greater improvement in the mean postoperative NDI score (p < 0.05) compared with the other cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Cellular allograft is a low-morbidity bone allograft option for ACDF. In this study, the authors determined favorable arthrodesis rates and functional outcomes in a complex patient cohort following multilevel stand-alone ACDF supplemented with cellular allograft.

Existing clinical evidence on the use of cellular bone matrix grafts in spinal fusion: updated systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Spinal fusion surgery is increasingly common; however, pseudarthrosis remains a common complication affecting as much as 15% of some patient populations. Currently, no clear consensus on the best bone graft materials to use exists. Recent advances have led to the development of cell-infused cellular bone matrices (CBMs), which contain living components such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Relatively few clinical outcome studies on the use of these grafts exist, although the number of such studies has increased in the last 5 years. In this study, the authors aimed to summarize and critically evaluate the existing clinical evidence on commercially available CBMs in spinal fusion and reported clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases for peer-reviewed, English-language original articles (1970-2020) in which the articles' authors studied the clinical outcomes of CBMs in spinal fusion. The US National Library of Medicine electronic clinical trials database (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) was also searched for relevant ongoing clinical trials.

RESULTS

Twelve published studies of 6 different CBM products met inclusion criteria: 5 studies of Osteocel Plus/Osteocel (n = 354 unique patients), 3 of Trinity Evolution (n = 114), 2 of ViviGen (n = 171), 1 of map3 (n = 41), and 1 of VIA Graft (n = 75). All studies reported high radiographic fusion success rates (range 87%-100%) using these CBMs. However, this literature was overwhelmingly limited to single-center, noncomparative studies. Seven studies disclosed industry funding or conflicts of interest (COIs). There are 4 known trials of ViviGen (3 trials) and Bio4 (1 trial) that are ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

CBMs are a promising technology with the potential of improving outcome after spinal fusion. However, while the number of studies conducted in humans has tripled since 2014, there is still insufficient evidence in the literature to recommend for or against CBMs relative to cheaper alternative materials. Comparative, multicenter trials and outcome registries free from industry COIs are indicated.

Arthroscopic Contribution of Synthetic Graft in Tibiotalocalcaneal Arthroscopic Fusions

Nonunion is a frequent complication of tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. The risk of nonunion increases significantly for those patients with systemic comorbidities and smokers. The purpose of this article is to show the proper way to supplement our arthroscopic fusion surgeries with biomaterial (peptide-15) graft. We have achieved an increase in consolidation rates in complex patient cases. We can conclude that this is a simple and reproducible technique.

Randomized clinical trial: expanded autologous bone marrow mesenchymal cells combined with allogeneic bone tissue, compared with autologous iliac crest graft in lumbar fusion surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although autogenous iliac crest bone graft (AICBG) is considered the gold-standard graft material for spinal fusion, new bone substitutes are being developed to avoid associated complications and disadvantages. By combining autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) expanded ex vivo and allogenic cancellous bone graft, we obtain a tissue-engineered product that is osteoconductive and potentially more osteogenic and osteoinductive than AICBG, owing to the higher concentration of MSCs.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implanting a tissue-engineered product consisting of expanded bone marrow MSCs loaded onto allograft bone (MSC+allograft) for spinal fusion in degenerative spine disease, as well as to assess its clinical and radiological efficacy.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A prospective, multicenter, open-label, blinded-reader, randomized, parallel, single-dose phase I-II clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 73 adult patients from 5 hospitals, with Meyerding grade I-II L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis and/or with L4-L5 degenerative disc disease who underwent spinal fusion through transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Spinal fusion was assessed by plain X-ray at 3, 6, and 12 months and by computed tomography (CT) at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. An independent radiologist performed blinded assessments of all images. Clinical outcomes were measured as change from baseline value: visual analog scale for lumbar and sciatic pain at 12 days, 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment, and Oswestry Disability Index and Short Form-36 at 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment.

METHODS

Patients who underwent L4-L5 TLIF were randomized for posterior graft type only, and received either MSC+allograft (the tissue-engineered product, group A) or AICBG (standard graft material, group B). Standard graft material was used for anterior fusion in all patients. Feasibility was measured primarily as the percentage of randomized patients who underwent surgery in each treatment group. Safety was assessed by analyzing treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) for the full experimental phase and appraising their relationship to the experimental treatment. Outcome measures, both radiological and clinical, were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were randomized in this study, 36 from the MSC+allograft group and 37 from the AICBG group, and 65 were surgically treated (31 group A, 34 group B). Demographic and comorbidity data showed no difference between groups. Most patients were diagnosed with grade I or II degenerative spondylolisthesis. MSC+allograft was successfully implanted in 86.1% of randomized group A patients. Most patients suffered treatment-emergent AEs during the study (88.2% in group A and 97.1% in group B), none related to the experimental treatment. X-ray-based rates of posterior spinal fusion were significantly higher for the experimental group at 6 months (p=.012) and 12 months (p=.0003). CT-based posterior fusion rates were significantly higher for MSC+allograft at 6 months (92.3% vs 45.7%; p=.0001) and higher, but not significantly, at 12 months (76.5% vs 65.7%; p=.073). CT-based complete response (defined as the presence of both posterior intertransverse fusion and anterior interbody fusion) was significantly higher at 6 months for MSC+allograft than for AICBG (70.6% vs 40%; p=.0038), and remained so at 12 months (70.6% vs 51.4%; p=.023). Clinical results including patient-reported outcomes improved postsurgery, although there were no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the current gold standard, our experimental treatment achieved a higher rate of posterior spinal fusion and radiographic complete response to treatment at 6 and 12 months after surgery. The treatment clearly improved patient quality of life and decreased pain and disability at rates similar to those for the control arm. The safety profile of the tissue-engineered product was also similar to that for the standard material, and no AEs were linked to the product. Procedural AEs did not increase as a result of BM aspiration. The use of expanded bone marrow MSCs combined with cancellous allograft is a feasible and effective technique for spinal fusion, with no product-related AEs found in our study.