Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Viable Allograft: 75 Consecutive Cases at 12-Month Follow-up

Nanotechnology in tissue engineering: expanding possibilities with nanoparticles

Tissue engineering is a multidisciplinary field that merges engineering, material science, and medical biology in order to develop biological alternatives for repairing, replacing, maintaining, or boosting the functionality of tissues and organs. The ultimate goal of tissue engineering is to create biological alternatives for repairing, replacing, maintaining, or enhancing the functionality of tissues and organs. However, the current landscape of tissue engineering techniques presents several challenges, including a lack of suitable biomaterials, inadequate cell proliferation, limited methodologies for replicating desired physiological structures, and the unstable and insufficient production of growth factors, which are essential for facilitating cell communication and the appropriate cellular responses. Despite these challenges, there has been significant progress made in tissue engineering techniques in recent years. Nanoparticles hold a major role within the realm of nanotechnology due to their unique qualities that change with size. These particles, which provide potential solutions to the issues that are met in tissue engineering, have helped propel nanotechnology to its current state of prominence. Despite substantial breakthroughs in the utilization of nanoparticles over the past two decades, the full range of their potential in addressing the difficulties within tissue engineering remains largely untapped. This is due to the fact that these advancements have occurred in relatively isolated pockets. In the realm of tissue engineering, the purpose of this research is to conduct an in-depth investigation of the several ways in which various types of nanoparticles might be put to use. In addition to this, it sheds light on the challenges that need to be conquered in order to unlock the maximum potential of nanotechnology in this area.

Cellular Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery - Are They Worth the Risk: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature for complications and outcomes after the implantation of cellular bone matrix (CBM) during spine fusion.

METHODS

The PubMed database was queried from inception to January 31, 2023 for any articles that discussed the role of and identified a specific CBM in spinal fusion procedures. Adverse events, reoperations, methods, and fusion rates were collected from all studies and reported.

RESULTS

Six hundred articles were identified, of which 19 were included that reported outcomes of 7 different CBM products. Seven studies evaluated lumbar fusion, 11 evaluated cervical fusion, and 1 study reported adverse events of a single CBM product. Only 4 studies were comparative studies while others were limited to case series. Fusion rates ranged from 68% to 98.7% in the lumbar spine and 87% to 100% in the cervical spine, although criteria for radiographic fusion was variable. While 7 studies reported no adverse events, there was no strict consensus on what constituted a complication. One study reported catastrophic disseminated tuberculosis from donor contaminated CBM. The authors of 14 studies had conflicts of interest with either the manufacturer or distributor for their analyzed CBM.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the use of cellular bone matrix as an osteobiologic during spine surgery is weak and limited to low-grade non-comparative studies subject to industry funding. While reported fusion rates are high, the risk of severe complications should not be overlooked. Further large clinical trials are required to elucidate whether the CBMs offer any benefits that outweigh the risks.

Bone Grafting Options for Single-Level TLIF: So Many Options, What Is the Evidence?

BACKGROUND

This review seeks to investigate the clinically relevant bone graft materials in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures as defined by (1) primary outcomes (ie, fusion rates and complication rates) and (2) patient-reported outcomes (ie, visual analog scale [VAS] and Oswestry disability index [ODI]). Because of the advantages in stimulating bone growth, autologous bone grafts such as the iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) have been the gold standard. Numerous alternatives to ICBG have been introduced. Understanding the risks and benefits of bone graft options is vital to optimizing patient care.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed for all clinical studies published between January 2008 and March 2023 that referenced the single-level TLIF procedure as well as one of the following grafts: autograft, allograft, bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), demineralized bone matrix, or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Case studies and reports were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies from the PubMed search demonstrated similarly high fusion rates across nearly all graft materials, the lone exception being MSCs, which showed lower fusion rates. ICBG grafts experienced higher rates of postoperative graft site pain. The BMP graft material had high rates of radiculitis, heterogeneous ossification, and vertebral osteolysis. Patients saw an overall improvement in VAS and ODI scores with all graft materials.

CONCLUSION

Local autografts and ICBG have been the most studied. Fusion rates during single-level TLIF were similar across all graft materials except MSCs. Patient-reported pain levels improved after TLIF surgery regardless of the type of grafts used. While BMP implants have shown promising benefits, they have introduced a new array of complications not normally seen in ICBG implants. The study is limited by the lack of evidence of certain graft materials as well as nonuniformity in metrics evaluating the efficacy of graft materials.

Acceptable Fusion Rate of Single-Level OLIF Using Pure Allograft Combined with Posterior Instrumentation through the Wiltse Approach: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study

OBJECTIVE

Autogenic bone grafts have shown successful fusion rates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders, but taking too many autogenic bones may result in donor site ischemia or infection. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of single-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using pure allograft combined with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation through the Wiltse approach.

METHODS

A retrospective case analysis was performed on a series of consecutive patients who received a single-level OLIF procedure combined with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation through the Wiltse approach between July 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, in which pure allogenic bone graft was used and filled in the large window of the cage. The patients were followed up as scheduled at 1 day and 3, 6, 12, 24 months after operation. Clinical outcome was assessed by multiple questionnaires, including Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score rating system, short form-36 health survey (SF-36), and visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain. Radiographic outcome was evaluated by measuring the parameters such as disc height, lumbar lordosis, and segmental angle on the standard standing lateral radiographs, and the space angle of the fusion level on the dynamic views of the lateral radiographs. Subsidence of the cage and intervertebral fusion status were evaluated on both the radiographic and CT scan images.

RESULTS

A total of 34 patients were finally included in this study. At 2-year follow-up, the VAS for low back pain, ODI, JOA, and SF-36 scores all had significant improvement (p < 0.001). Substantial increase of anterior and posterior disc heights was observed (p < 0.001). Both lumbar lordosis and segmental angle became larger (p < 0.05). No visible change of the space angle of the fusion level was found on the dynamic views. The 1-year fusion rate of 73.5% on CT scans proceeded to 82.4% at 2-year follow-up. The fusion rate was as high as 91.2% according to Bridwell interbody fusion grading system on radiographic images. The clinical outcomes in patients with incomplete fusion were just as good as those with complete fusion. The six patients with cage subsidence had higher ODI (p < 0.001) and lower JOA (p < 0.001) and SF-36 PCS (p = 0.011) scores than those without cage subsidence.

CONCLUSION

The use of pure allograft in single-level OLIF resulted in an acceptable fusion rate and satisfactory clinical effect at 2-year follow-up. Supplementation of posterior pedicle screw through the minimally invasive Wiltse approach ensured the favorable outcomes both clinically and radiographically.

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.

Bone Graft Options in Spinal Fusion: A Review of Current Options and the Use of Mesenchymal Cellular Bone Matrices

BACKGROUND

Spinal fusion is the mainstay treatment for various spinal conditions ranging from lumbar and cervical stenosis to degenerative spondylolisthesis as well as extensive deformity corrections. A new emerging category of allograft is cellular bone matrices (CBMs), which take allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells and incorporate them into an osteoconductive and osteoinductive matrix. This study reviewed the current spinal fusion options and new emerging treatment options.

METHODS

Articles were searched using PubMed. The search included English publications since January 1, 2014, using the search terms "cellular bone matrix," "mesenchymal stem cells spinal fusion," "spinal arthrodesis AND mesenchymal stem cells," and "spine fusion AND cellular bone matrix."

RESULTS

Spinal fusion is accomplished through the use of allografts, autografts, and bone graft substitutes in combination or alone. An emerging category of allograft is CBMs, in which an osteoconductive and osteoinductive matrix is filled with mesenchymal stem cells. Studies demonstrate that CBMs have achieved equivalent or better fusion rates compared with traditional options for anterior cervical discectomy and fusions and posterolateral lumbar fusions; however, the studies have been retrospective and lacking control groups and therefore not ideal.

CONCLUSIONS

Many treatment options have been successfully used in spinal fusion. Newer allografts such as CBMs have shown promising results in both animal and clinical studies. Further research is needed to determine the therapeutic dose of mesenchymal stem cells delivered within CBMs.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a cellular allogeneic bone matrix in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease and lumbar spinal instability

Background

Cellular allogeneic bone grafts are used as a biologic adjuvant in lumbar spinal fusions. The clinical use of a minimally invasive extreme lateral approach to the lumbar spine has been widely adopted; however, there are few clinical studies that have documented the clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with the use of cellular allografts as an adjunct to fusion in this advanced surgical approach.

Methods

A consecutive series of 67 patients (34 males and 33 females) with a mean age of 66.8 years (26-85 years) who underwent single- or multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with supplemental posterior segmental spinal fixation using a cellular allogeneic bone matrix as the only bone graft material was retrospectively reviewed by a single surgeon. Patients' preoperative and 3- and 12-month postoperative data were studied. All patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months. Standardized clinical outcome measures-36-Item Short Form Surgery (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain scores-were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. An average of 2.25 levels was treated per patient (151 total levels). Fusion status was assessed by dynamic radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans. The statistical method used to identify the significance of the observed changes in clinical outcomes was the paired 2-sided t-tests. Significance was ascribed to P values <0.05.

Results

Fusion was achieved at 142 levels (142/151; 94%). Eight levels (8/151; 5.3%) showed partial fusions and one patient (single level) had no fusion. In the group of patients with fusions, the mean back and leg pain scores showed improvement from preoperative scores at both 3 and 12 months (P<0.001). Functional outcomes showed similar clinical success in both in SF-36 and ODI scores.

Conclusions

The use of a cellular allogeneic bone matrix provided osteoconductive and osteoinductive components for successful spine fusions and was associated with statistically significant improvement in SF-36, VAS, and ODI scores.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status

Minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) has become the most commonly performed lumbar fusion procedure. There are multiple variables such as bone graft properties, use of rhBMP (recombinant human bone morphogenic protein), interbody cage properties, image guidance techniques, etc., that may impact the outcomes and fusion rates. Radiation exposure to the patient as well as to the operating team is an important concern. The minimally invasive anterior approaches for lumbar fusion with ability to insert larger cages and achieve better sagittal correction have added another option in management of lumbar degenerative deformities. A literature review of recent studies and systematic reviews on different aspects impacting the outcomes of MIS TLIF has been done to define the present status of the procedure in this narrative review. Iliac crest bone graft can help achieve very good fusion rate without significantly increasing the morbidity. RhBMP is most potent enhancer of fusion and the adverse effects can be avoided by surgical technique and using lower dose. The use of navigation techniques has reduced the radiation exposure to patient and the surgeons but the benefit seems to be significant only in long segment fusions.

Commercial Bone Grafts Claimed as an Alternative to Autografts: Current Trends for Clinical Applications in Orthopaedics

In the last twenty years, due to an increasing medical and market demand for orthopaedic implants, several grafting options have been developed. However, when alternative bone augmentation materials mimicking autografts are searched on the market, commercially available products may be grouped into three main categories: cellular bone matrices, growth factor enhanced bone grafts, and peptide enhanced xeno-hybrid bone grafts. Firstly, to obtain data for this review, the search engines Google and Bing were employed to acquire information from reports or website portfolios of important competitors in the global bone graft market. Secondly, bibliographic databases such as Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were also employed to analyse data from preclinical/clinical studies performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of each product released on the market. Here, we discuss several products in terms of osteogenic/osteoinductive/osteoconductive properties, safety, efficacy, and side effects, as well as regulatory issues and costs. Although both positive and negative results were reported in clinical applications for each class of products, to date, peptide enhanced xeno-hybrid bone grafts may represent the best choice in terms of risk/benefit ratio. Nevertheless, more prospective and controlled studies are needed before approval for routine clinical use.

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.

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.

Allografts and Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

Back pain is a common chief complaint within the United States and is caused by a multitude of etiologies. There are many different treatment modalities for back pain, with a frequent option being spinal fusion procedures. The success of spinal fusion greatly depends on instrumentation, construct design, and bone grafts used in surgery. Bone allografts are important for both structural integrity and providing a scaffold for bone fusion to occur.

METHOD

Searches were performed using terms "allografts" and "bone" as well as product names in peer reviewed literature Pubmed, Google Scholar, FDA-510k approvals, and clinicaltrials.gov.

RESULTS

This study is a review of allografts and focuses on currently available products and their success in both animal and clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Bone grafts used in surgery are generally categorized into 3 main types: autogenous (from patient's own body), allograft (from cadaveric or living donor), and synthetic. This paper focuses on allografts and provides an overview on the different subtypes with an emphasis on recent product development and uses in spinal fusion surgery.

Understanding the Future Prospects of Synergizing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery with Ceramics and Regenerative Cellular Therapies

Transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) is the last resort to address the lumber degenerative disorders such as spondylolisthesis, causing lower back pain. The current surgical intervention for these abnormalities includes open TLIF. However, in recent years, minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) has gained a high momentum, as it could minimize the risk of infection, blood loss, and post-operative complications pertaining to fusion surgery. Further advancement in visualizing and guiding techniques along with grafting cage and materials are continuously improving the safety and efficacy of MIS-TLIF. These assistive techniques are also playing a crucial role to increase and improve the learning curve of surgeons. However, achieving an appropriate output through TLIF still remains a challenge, which might be synergized through 3D-printing and tissue engineering-based regenerative therapy. Owing to their differentiation potential, biomaterials such as stem/progenitor cells may contribute to restructuring lost or damaged tissues during MIS-TLIF, and this therapeutic efficacy could be further supplemented by platelet-derived biomaterials, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Thus, based on the above-mentioned strategies, we have comprehensively summarized recent developments in MIS-TLIF and its possible combinatorial regenerative therapies for rapid and long-term relief.

The limited area decompression, intervertebral fusion, and pedicle screw fixation for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with instability: Follow-up at least 12 months an observational study

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical effect of the limited area decompression, intervertebral fusion, and pedicle screw fixation for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) with instability. Hemilaminectomy decompression, intervertebral fusion, and pedicle screw fixation for treating DLSS with instability as the control group.Follow-up of 54 patients (26 males and 28 females; average age, 59.74 ± 10.38 years) with DLSS with instability treated by limited area decompression, intervertebral fusion, and pedicle screw fixation (LIFP group), and 52 patients as control group with hemilaminectomy decompression, intervertebral fusion, and pedicle screw fixation (HIFP group). We assessed clinical effect according to the patients' functional outcome grading (good to excellent, fair, or poor), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain and lower limb pain, which was administered preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Fusion status was assessed by radiologists at the last follow-up. Treatment satisfaction was assessed according to the subjective evaluations of the patients.At the 12-month follow-up, 96.2% (52/54) and 90.3% (47/52) of group LIFP and HIFP belonged to good to excellent outcome categories, respectively, while 3.7% (2/54) and 9.6% (5/52) of group LIFP and HIFP belonged to fair respectively, neither group belonged to poor. Satisfaction rates of patients in group LIFP and group HIFP were 98.1% (53/54) and 92.3% (48/52), respectively. The patients' functional outcome grading and satisfaction rate in group LIFP were better than that in group HIFP. The VAS for low back and lower limb pain and the ODI improved significantly during the 12 months after surgery (all P < .001) in 2 groups. The VAS for low back and lower limb pain were no difference between two groups, however, the ODI of group LIFP was lower than that of group HIFP (P < .001). All patients achieved radiological fusion.The limited area decompression, intervertebral fusion, and pedicle screw fixation had a satisfactory effect on patients with DLSS with instability.

Methods of Cryoprotectant Preservation: Allogeneic Cellular Bone Grafts and Potential Effects

Debridement of the bone surface during a surgical fusion procedure initiates an injury response promoting a healing cascade of molecular mediators released over time. Autologous grafts offer natural scaffolding to fill the bone void and to provide local bone cells. Commercial bone grafting products such as allografts, synthetic bone mineral products, etc., are used to supplement or to replace autologous grafts by supporting osteoinductivity, osteoconductivity, and osteogenesis at the surgical site. To assure osteogenic potential, preservation of allogeneic cells with cryoprotectants has been developed to allow for long-term storage and thus delivery of viable bone cells to the surgical site. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is an intracellular cryoprotectant commonly used because it provides good viability of the cells post-thaw. However, there is known cytotoxicity reported for DMSO when cells are stored above cryogenic temperatures. For most cellular bone graft products, the cryoprotectant is incorporated with the cells into the other mineralized bone and demineralized bone components. During thawing, the DMSO may not be sufficiently removed from allograft products compared to its use in a cell suspension where removal by washing and centrifugation is available. Therefore, both the allogeneic cell types in the bone grafting product and the local cell types at the bone grafting site could be affected as cytotoxicity varies by cell type and by DMSO content according to reported studies. Overcoming cytotoxicity may be an additional challenge in the formation of bone at a wound or surgical site. Other extracellular cryoprotectants have been explored as alternatives to DMSO which preserve without entering the cell membrane, thereby providing good cellular viability post-thaw and might abrogate the cytotoxicity concerns.

Human Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Seeded Bone Biomaterial Directs Fast and Superior Mandibular Bone Augmentation in Rats

Atrophic maxillary ridges present a challenge in the field of oral implantology. Autologous bone is still considered the gold standard grafting material, but the increased morbidity and surgical complications represent a major drawback for its use. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of an off-the-shelf cell-seeded bone biomaterial for mandibular bone augmentation, compared to its acellular counterpart. We used a rat model to test the osteogenic properties of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs)-seeded bone microparticles compared to acellular bone microparticles alone. Rats were euthanized at 4 and 8 weeks, and results analyzed using micro-CT imaging, histology (H&E, Masson’s Trichrome), histomorphometry and immunohistology (Tartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphatase-TRAP, Osteocalcin and human specific anti-mitochondria antibodies). Micro-CT analysis demonstrated that the cell-seeded biomaterial achieved significantly more bone volume formation at 4 weeks (22.75 ± 2.25 mm³ vs 12.34 ± 2.91 mm³, p = 0.016) and at 8 weeks (64.95 ± 5.41 mm³ vs 42.73 ± 10.58 mm³, p = 0.029), compared to the acellular bone microparticles. Histology confirmed that the cell-seeded biomaterial was almost completely substituted at 8 weeks, in opposition to the acellular biomaterial group. Immunohistochemical analysis showed a significantly higher number of TRAP and Osteocalcin positive cells at 4 weeks in the cell-seeded group compared to the acellular group, thereby demonstrating a higher rate of bone remodeling in the presence of MSCs. The grafted human cells remained viable and were detected up to at least 8 weeks, as observed using the human specific anti-mitochondria antibody. This off-the-shelf material available in unlimited quantities could therefore represent a significant advance in the field of mandibular bone augmentation by providing a larger volume of new bone formation in a shorter time.

Allogenic Stem Cells in Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To review, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence on the use of allogenic stem cell products for spine fusion compared with other bone graft materials.

METHODS

Systematic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, through October 31, 2018 and of EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 13, 2018 were conducted for literature comparing allogenic stem cell sources for fusion in the lumbar or cervical spine with other fusion methods. In the absence of comparative studies, case series of ≥10 patients were considered.

RESULTS

From 382 potentially relevant citations identified, 6 publications on lumbar fusion and 5 on cervical fusion met the inclusion criteria. For lumbar arthrodesis, mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, and fusion rates were similar for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using allogenic multipotent adult progenitor cells (Map3) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in the one comparative lumbar study (90% vs 92%). Across case series of allogenic stem cell products, function and pain were improved relative to baseline and fusion occurred in ≥90% of patients at ≥12 months. For cervical arthrodesis across case series, stem cell products improved function and pain compared with baseline at various time frames. In a retrospective cohort study fusion rates were not statistically different for Osteocel compared with Vertigraft allograft (88% vs 95%). Fusion rates varied across time frames and intervention products in case series.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality (strength) of evidence of effectiveness and safety of allogenic stem cells products for lumbar and cervical arthrodesis was very low, meaning that we have very little confidence that the effects seen are reflective of the true effects.