Comparing Rates of Fusion and Time to Fusion in Viable Cellular Allograft and Autograft

BACKGROUND

Autograft or allograft frequently are used to enhance bone union in foot and ankle surgery. Viable cellular bone allograft uses viable cells and bone scaffolding in a gel base, but uncertainty remains around allograft's greater efficacy than autograft regarding rates of fusion (ROF) and time to fusion (TTF).

METHODS

Autograft, viable cellular allograft, and viable cellular allograft with autograft were compared in 199 forefoot, midfoot, and hindfoot arthrodeses performed over a 6-year period. Data collected from electronic medical records and radiographs were analyzed to determine ROF and TTF as well as rates of revision surgery for delayed or nonunion and compared among groups.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients comprised the autograft group, 81 the allograft group, and 31 the combined group. No significant differences were noted in patient demographics among the groups. No statistically significant differences in ROF were noted among the 3 groups, with 86% (75 of 87) fusion in the autograft group, 93% (75 of 81) in the allograft group, and 84% (26 of 31) in the combined group (P = .20). After conducting a multivariate analysis, we found no statistically significant difference for allograft or combined graft on TTF (P = .1379 and .2311, respectively). No significant difference was found in rate of revision surgery for nonunion, which was 1.2% (1 of 81) in the allograft group, 3.4% (3 of 87) in the autograft group, and 6.5% (2 of 31) in the combined group (P = .3).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was found in ROF, TTF, or rate of revision surgery when comparing viable cellular allograft to autograft or combined allograft-autograft. Viable cellular allograft may be a reasonable alternative to the gold standard of autograft and should be considered an option in patients undergoing arthrodesis in foot and ankle surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic.

Twelve-Month Results from a Prospective Clinical Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Cellular Bone Allograft in Subjects Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

While autologous bone grafts remain the gold standard for spinal fusion procedures, harvesting autologous bone is associated with significant complications, including donor site infection, hematomas, increased operative time, and prolonged pain. Cellular bone allograft (CBA) presents an alternative to autologous bone harvesting, with a favorable efficacy and safety profile. The current study further investigates CBA as an adjunct to lumbar spinal fusion procedures.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical study was conducted in subjects undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (NCT02969616). Radiographic fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and CT scans. Clinical outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Adverse-event reporting was conducted throughout 12 months of follow-up. Available subject data at 12 months were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 274 subjects were enrolled into the study, with available data from 201 subjects (73.3%) who completed 12 months of postoperative radiographic and clinical evaluation at the time of analysis. Subjects had a mean age of 60.2 ± 11.5 years. A higher number of women (n = 124, 61.7%) than men (n = 77, 38.3%) were enrolled, with a collective mean BMI of 30.6 + 6.5 kg/m² (range 18.0-51.4). At month 12, successful fusion was achieved in 90.5% of subjects. A significant (<i>p</i> &amp;lt; 0.001) improvement in ODI, VAS-back, and VAS-leg clinical outcomes was also observed compared to baseline scores. One adverse event related to CBA (postoperative radiculopathy) was reported, with surgical exploration demonstrating interbody extrusion of graft material. This subject reported successful fusion at month 12.

CONCLUSIONS

CBA represents a viable substitute for harvesting of autograft alone with a high rate of successful fusion and significant improvements in subject-reported outcomes, such as pain and disability. Positive benefit was observed in subjects reporting single and multiple risk factors for pseudoarthrosis.

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.

Multipotential stromal cell abundance in cellular bone allograft: comparison with fresh age-matched iliac crest bone and bone marrow aspirate

AIM

To enumerate and characterize multipotential stromal cells (MSCs) in a cellular bone allograft and compare with fresh age-matched iliac crest bone and bone marrow (BM) aspirate.

MATERIALS & METHODS

MSC characterization used functional assays, confocal/scanning electron microscopy and whole-genome microarrays. Resident MSCs were enumerated by flow cytometry following enzymatic extraction.

RESULTS

Allograft material contained live osteocytes and proliferative bone-lining cells defined as MSCs by phenotypic and functional capacities. Without cultivation/expansion, the allograft displayed an 'osteoinductive' molecular signature and the presence of CD45(-)CD271(+)CD73(+)CD90(+)CD105(+) MSCs; with a purity over 100-fold that of iliac crest bone. In comparison with BM, MSC numbers enzymatically released from 1 g of cellular allograft were equivalent to approximately 45 ml of BM aspirate.

CONCLUSION

Cellular allograft bone represents a unique nonimmune material rich in MSCs and osteocytes. This osteoinductive graft represents an attractive alternative to autograft bone or composite/synthetic grafts in orthopedics and broader regenerative medicine settings.