Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model
Abstract 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 emergi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2020-06-01
|
| Series: | JOR Spine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1084 |
| _version_ | 1818521875265880064 |
|---|---|
| author | Cliff Lin Nianli Zhang Erik I. Waldorff Paolo Punsalan David Wang Eric Semler James T. Ryaby Jung Yoo Brian Johnstone |
| author_facet | Cliff Lin Nianli Zhang Erik I. Waldorff Paolo Punsalan David Wang Eric Semler James T. Ryaby Jung Yoo Brian Johnstone |
| author_sort | Cliff Lin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T01:57:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-04513e53ab174284925faf91e9145e89 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2572-1143 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T01:57:10Z |
| publishDate | 2020-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | JOR Spine |
| spelling | doaj.art-04513e53ab174284925faf91e9145e892022-12-22T01:24:35ZengWileyJOR Spine2572-11432020-06-0132n/an/a10.1002/jsp2.1084Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat modelCliff Lin0Nianli Zhang1Erik I. Waldorff2Paolo Punsalan3David Wang4Eric Semler5James T. Ryaby6Jung Yoo7Brian Johnstone8Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USAOrthofix Medical Inc Lewisville Texas USAOrthofix Medical Inc Lewisville Texas USADepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USAMTF Biologics Edison New Jersey USAMTF Biologics Edison New Jersey USAOrthofix Medical Inc Lewisville Texas USADepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USADepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Oregon Health & Science University Portland Oregon USAAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1084allograftathymic ratbiologic therapiesbone graft substitutescell‐based therapycellular bone matrices |
| spellingShingle | Cliff Lin Nianli Zhang Erik I. Waldorff Paolo Punsalan David Wang Eric Semler James T. Ryaby Jung Yoo Brian Johnstone Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model JOR Spine allograft athymic rat biologic therapies bone graft substitutes cell‐based therapy cellular bone matrices |
| title | Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model |
| title_full | Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model |
| title_fullStr | Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model |
| title_short | Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model |
| title_sort | comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model |
| topic | allograft athymic rat biologic therapies bone graft substitutes cell‐based therapy cellular bone matrices |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1084 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT clifflin comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT nianlizhang comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT erikiwaldorff comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT paolopunsalan comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT davidwang comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT ericsemler comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT jamestryaby comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT jungyoo comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel AT brianjohnstone comparingcellularbonematricesforposterolateralspinalfusioninaratmodel |