Clinical evaluation of an allogeneic bone matrix containing viable osteogenic cells in patients undergoing one- and two-level posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis with decompressive laminectomy

Radiographic Fusion Outcomes for Trinity Cellular Based Allograft versus Local Bone in Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion

INTRODUCTION

Cellular-based autograft (CBA) is being used in posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis as a fusion supplementation alternative.

OBJECTIVE

To assess radiographic fusion in patients undergoing posterolateral lumbar fusion with unilateral Trinity CBA compared with contralateral local bone autograft as an internal control.

METHODS

A single surgeon's practice database was interrogated for consecutive patients undergoing primary posterolateral lumbar fusion with Trinity from 2018 to 2021. Patients had Trinity applied unilaterally, with local bone autograft applied contralaterally. Fusion was assessed postoperatively by using CT after 9 months. Demographics and patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and up to 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included. There were 81 attempted fusion levels. Overall fusion rate, defined as bony bridging on at least one side of a given level for all levels fused, was 85.2% of patients. No statistically significant difference was observed in fusion rates between CBA versus local bone (79.0% versus 76.54% of levels attempted, respectively, P = 0.3527). Oswestry Disability Index improved by 3 months (P = 0.0152) and was maintained. Two patients required revision for symptomatic nonunion.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar radiographic fusion rates were achieved with Trinity and local bone. Trinity is a viable alternative to local bone in posterolateral lumbar fusion.

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.

Radiographical outcomes of a cellular based allograft following foot/ankle arthrodesis in patients with risk for non-union

Morbidity associated with autograft harvest has led to the need for alternative bone grafts during fusion surgical procedures. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a cellular bone allograft (CBA) in patients who underwent foot/ankle fusion surgery. Retrospective data of patients who underwent foot/ankle arthrodesis using a CBA between XXXX and XXXX were collected from a single site. Patients were at least 18 years of age at the time of surgery and had ankle/foot surgery with Trinity ELITE CBA as the primary or only bone graft. Patients' radiographic union was assessed at three (3) months, six (6) months, nine (9) months, and twelve (12) months. Twenty-two (22) patients and 29 joints were evaluated. The mean age and BMI of the cohort were 54±9yrs and 30.5±6kg/m2, respectively. The surgical indications were degenerative joint diseases, trauma, and arthritis. All patients except one had at least one risk factor for non-union. At 12 months, 21 of the 22 patients (95%) attained successful fusion with an average time of 6 months. In addition, there was a 100% fusion among patients with prior failed fusion, nicotine use, diabetes, neuropathy, and osteoporosis. There was no significant difference in time to fusion between patients with non-union risk factor(s) ≤ 1 and ≥ 2 (p=0.71). No complication or adverse event was reported following the surgery. The use of CBA resulted in high fusion among patients with the risk of non-union. CBA is a viable bone graft substitute for autograft in foot/ankle arthrodesis procedures.

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.

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.

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.

Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model

INTRODUCTION

Cellular bone matrices (CBM) are allograft products that provide three components essential to new bone formation: an osteoconductive scaffold, extracellular growth factors for cell proliferation and differentiation, and viable cells with osteogenic potential. This is an emerging technology being applied to augment spinal fusion procedures as an alternative to autografts.

METHODS

We aim to compare the ability of six commercially-available human CBMs (Trinity ELITE®, ViviGen®, Cellentra®, Osteocel® Pro, Bio4® and Map3®) to form a stable spinal fusion using an athymic rat model of posterolateral fusion. Iliac crest bone from syngeneic rats was used as a control to approximate the human gold standard. The allografts were implanted at L4-5 according to vendor specifications in male athymic rats, with 15 rats in each group. MicroCT scans were performed at 48 hours and 6 weeks post-implantation. The rats were euthanized 6 weeks after surgery and the lumbar spines were harvested for X-ray, manual palpation and histology analysis by blinded reviewers.

RESULTS

By manual palpation, five of 15 rats of the syngeneic bone group were fused at 6 weeks. While Trinity ELITE had eight of 15 and Cellentra 11 of 15 rats with stable fusion, only 2 of 15 of ViviGen-implanted spines were fused and zero of 15 of the Osteocel Pro, Bio4 and Map3 produced stable fusion. MicroCT analysis indicated that total bone volume increased from day 0 to week 6 for all groups except syngeneic bone group. Trinity ELITE (65%) and Cellentra (73%) had significantly greater bone volume increases over all other implants, which was consistent with the histological analysis.

CONCLUSION

Trinity ELITE and Cellentra were significantly better than other implants at forming new bone and achieving spinal fusion in this rat model at week 6. These results suggest that there may be large differences in the ability of different CBMs to elicit a successful fusion in the posterolateral spine.

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.

ISASS Recommendations and Coverage Criteria for Bone Graft Substitutes used in Spinal Surgery

Autologous bone graft remains the gold standard by which bone graft substitutes are compared in spine fusion surgery. The utilization of bone graft substitutes, either as (1) an extender for spinal fusion constructs or (2) an alternative to minimize morbidity while maximizing outcomes, is changing. Moreover, current procedures technology (CPT) code 20939 became effective in 2018 defining bone marrow aspirate for bone grafting, spine surgery only. Changes in the complex landscape of grafting materials have prompted ISASS to provide category guidance for bone graft substitutes by comparing and contrasting US regulatory pathways, mechanisms of action, and supportive clinical evidence for these bone grafting materials.

Proceedings of the signature series symposium "cellular therapies for orthopaedics and musculoskeletal disease proven and unproven therapies-promise, facts and fantasy," international society for cellular therapies, montreal, canada, may 2, 2018

The Signature Series Symposium "Cellular Therapies for Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Disease Proven and Unproven Therapies-Promise, Facts and Fantasy" was held as a pre-meeting of the 26^th International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) annual congress in Montreal, Canada, May 2, 2018. This was the first ISCT program that was entirely dedicated to the advancement of cell-based therapies for musculoskeletal diseases. Cellular therapies in musculoskeletal medicine are a source of great promise and opportunity. They are also the source of public controversy, confusion and misinformation. Patients, clinicians, scientists, industry and government share a commitment to clear communication and responsible development of the field. Therefore, this symposium convened thought leaders from around the world in a forum designed to catalyze communication and collaboration to bring the greatest possible innovation and value to patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Preferential Lineage-Specific Differentiation of Osteoblast-Derived Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells into Osteoprogenitors. Stem Cells Int. 2017;2017:1513281. [PMID: 28250775 PMCID: PMC5303871 DOI: 10.1155/2017/1513281]

While induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) hold great clinical promise, one hurdle that remains is the existence of a parental germ-layer memory in reprogrammed cells leading to preferential differentiation fates. While it is problematic for generating cells vastly different from the reprogrammed cells' origins, it could be advantageous for the reliable generation of germ-layer specific cell types for future therapeutic use. Here we use human osteoblast-derived iPSCs (hOB-iPSCs) to generate induced osteoprogenitors (iOPs). Osteoblasts were successfully reprogrammed and demonstrated by endogenous upregulation of Oct4, Sox2, Nanog, TRA-1-81, TRA-16-1, SSEA3, and confirmatory hPSC Scorecard Algorithmic Assessment. The hOB-iPSCs formed embryoid bodies with cells of ectoderm and mesoderm but have low capacity to form endodermal cells. Differentiation into osteoprogenitors occurred within only 2-6 days, with a population doubling rate of less than 24 hrs; however, hOB-iPSC derived osteoprogenitors were only able to form osteogenic and chondrogenic cells but not adipogenic cells. Consistent with this, hOB-iOPs were found to have higher methylation of PPARγ but similar levels of methylation on the RUNX2 promoter. These data demonstrate that iPSCs can be generated from human osteoblasts, but variant methylation patterns affect their differentiation capacities. Therefore, epigenetic memory can be exploited for efficient generation of clinically relevant quantities of osteoprogenitor cells.