A Comparative Evaluation of Commercially Available Cell-Based Allografts in a Rat Spinal Fusion Model.
Osteocel Plus
Posterolateral spine fusion
Trinity ELITE
Trinity Evolution
allograft
athymic rat
stem cells
Journal
International journal of spine surgery
ISSN: 2211-4599
Titre abrégé: Int J Spine Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101579005
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
2
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the comparative abilities of commercially available, viable, cellular bone allografts to promote posterolateral spinal fusion. Human allografts containing live cells were implanted in the athymic rat model of posterolateral spine fusion. Three commercially available allogeneic cellular bone matrices (Trinity Evolution, Trinity ELITE and Osteocel Plus) were compared with syngeneic iliac crest bone as the control. All spines underwent radiographs, manual palpation, and micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis after excision at 6 weeks. Histological sections of randomly selected spines were subjected to semiquantitative histopathological scoring for bone formation. By manual palpation, posterolateral fusion was detected in 40% (6/15) of spines implanted with syngeneic bone, whereas spines implanted with Trinity Evolution and Trinity ELITE allografts yielded 71% (10/14) and 77% (10/13) fusion, respectively. Only 7% (1/14) of spines implanted with Osteocel Plus allografts were judged fused by manual palpation (statistically significantly less than ELITE, The Trinity Evolution and Trinity ELITE cellular bone allografts were more effective at creating posterolateral fusion than either the Osteocel Plus allografts or syngeneic bone in this animal model. The superior fusion rate of Trinity cellular bone allografts may lead to better clinical outcome of spinal fusion surgeries.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the comparative abilities of commercially available, viable, cellular bone allografts to promote posterolateral spinal fusion.
METHODS
METHODS
Human allografts containing live cells were implanted in the athymic rat model of posterolateral spine fusion. Three commercially available allogeneic cellular bone matrices (Trinity Evolution, Trinity ELITE and Osteocel Plus) were compared with syngeneic iliac crest bone as the control. All spines underwent radiographs, manual palpation, and micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis after excision at 6 weeks. Histological sections of randomly selected spines were subjected to semiquantitative histopathological scoring for bone formation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
By manual palpation, posterolateral fusion was detected in 40% (6/15) of spines implanted with syngeneic bone, whereas spines implanted with Trinity Evolution and Trinity ELITE allografts yielded 71% (10/14) and 77% (10/13) fusion, respectively. Only 7% (1/14) of spines implanted with Osteocel Plus allografts were judged fused by manual palpation (statistically significantly less than ELITE,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Trinity Evolution and Trinity ELITE cellular bone allografts were more effective at creating posterolateral fusion than either the Osteocel Plus allografts or syngeneic bone in this animal model.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
The superior fusion rate of Trinity cellular bone allografts may lead to better clinical outcome of spinal fusion surgeries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32355628
doi: 10.14444/7026
pmc: PMC7188100
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
213-221Informations de copyright
©International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures and COI: This study was funded by a research grant received by B.J. and J.Y. from Orthofix Medical Inc (Lewisville, TX) and MTF Biologics (Edison, NJ). Because MTF Biologics and Orthofix Medical Inc are the manufacturer and distributor of the Trinity spine allografts, we mitigated the potential conflict of interest by blinding every aspect of the study and carrying out the procedures and analyses in this manner before breaking the codes used and examining any differences between the results for the various implants. This process included surgeons not being aware of which allograft they were implanting; randomization of implantation order between each 5-rat batch used for a given implant; manual palpation scoring, x-ray scoring, and micro-CT volume measurements done with all spines randomized and blinding of scorers as to implant type; histology descriptions made by researchers blinded as to implant type. J.T.R., E.I.W., and N.Z. are employees of and own stocks in Orthofix Medical Inc. E.S. and A.D. are employees of MTF Biologics.
Références
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 11;8(12):e81599
pubmed: 24349093
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013 Jul;115(7):991-4
pubmed: 23182179
ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:263637
pubmed: 23251099
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Dec;14(12):1324-31
pubmed: 2617362
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Mar 1;24(5):434-8; discussion 438-9
pubmed: 10084179
Spine J. 2014 Nov 1;14(11):2763-72
pubmed: 24929059
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Aug 1;35(17):1629-39
pubmed: 20628336
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Dec 1;23(23):2486-92
pubmed: 9854747
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jun 15;29(12):1308-13
pubmed: 15187630
Eur Spine J. 2007 Aug;16(8):1233-40
pubmed: 17205237
Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2013;71(1):39-48
pubmed: 24032582
Spine J. 2004 May-Jun;4(3):281-6
pubmed: 15125850
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jan 1;32(1):36-41
pubmed: 17202890
Spine J. 2006 Jul-Aug;6(4):391-6
pubmed: 16825044
Spine J. 2002 May-Jun;2(3):206-15
pubmed: 14589495
Foot Ankle Int. 2015 Oct;36(10):1129-37
pubmed: 25976919
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Oct;18(5):439-44
pubmed: 16189457