Dataset Information

The clinical use of allografts, demineralized bone matrices, synthetic bone graft substitutes and osteoinductive growth factors: a survey study.

ABSTRACT: The emergence of new bone grafting options and alternatives has led to significant uncertainty when determining the most appropriate product for surgical procedures requiring bone graft in orthopedics. Allografts, demineralized bone matrices, synthetic bone graft substitutes, and osteoinductive growth factors are all viable options, yet there is a lack of data reporting clinical usage of these products. This correspondence reports on the use of bone grafting products at the Hospital for Special Surgery for a 27-month period and makes recommendations based on surgical usage, safety, and cost. Approximately half (48.6%) of all bone graft substitutes were implanted during spinal surgery. Arthroplasty, trauma, and foot/hand cases all used considerable amounts of bone grafting products as well (20.1%, 19.0%, 12.1%, respectively). Considerable differences were noticed in usage of bone grafting products among each orthopedic discipline. Of all bone graft substitutes used in arthroplasty, 14.4% were demineralized bone matrices, whereas 56.8% were allografts. Demineralized bone matrix grafts were used in 82% of trauma surgery and 89% of foot/hand cases. An increase in synthetic bone graft alternatives was noticed near the end of our investigation period.

SUBMITTER: Bostrom MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2504134 | biostudies-other | 2005 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Advances in the field of stem cell technology have stimulated the development and increased use of allogenic bone grafts containing live mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), also known as cellular bone matrices (CBMs). It is estimated that CBMs comprise greater than 17% of all bone grafts and bone graft substitutes used.To critically evaluate CBMs, specifically their technical specifications, existing published data supporting their use, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, cost, potential pitfalls, and other aspects pertaining to their use.Areview of literature.A series of Ovid, Medline, and Pubmed-National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) searches were performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Specific technical information on each CBM was obtained by direct communication from the companies marketing the individual products.Five different CBMs are currently available for use in spinal fusion surgery. There is a wide variation between the products with regard to the average donor age at harvest, total cellular concentration, percentage of MSCs, shelf life, and cell viability after defrosting. Three retrospective studies evaluating CBMs and fusion have shown fusion rates ranging from 90.2% to 92.3%, and multiple industry-sponsored trials are underway. No independent studies evaluating spinal fusion rates with the use of CBMs exist. All the commercially available CBMs claim to meet the FDA criteria under Section 361, 21 CFR Part 1271, and are not undergoing FDA premarket review. The CBMs claim to provide viable MSCs and are offered at a premium cost. Numerous challenges exist in regard to MSCs' survival, function, osteoblastic potential, and cytokine production once implanted into the intended host.Cellular bone matrices may be a promising bone augmentation technology in spinal fusion surgery. Although CBMs appear to be safe for use as bone graft substitutes, their efficacy in spinal fusion surgery remains highly inconclusive. Large, nonindustry sponsored studies evaluating the efficacy of CBMs are required. Without results from such studies, surgeons must be made aware of the potential pitfalls of CBMs in spinal fusion surgery. With the currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of CBMs as bone graft substitutes in spinal fusion surgery.

Project description:BackgroundDemineralized bone matrix is commonly used as a bone graft substitute, either alone or to supplement an osteoconductive material, because of its osteoinductive properties. The aging of the population has led to an increase in the number of prospective donors of demineralized bone matrix who have taken bisphosphonates to prevent osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. The aim of this study was to determine whether oral bisphosphonate usage affects the osteoinductivity of demineralized bone matrix from donors.MethodsSex-matched and age-matched pairs of samples were provided by four tissue banks (three or four pairs per bank). Demineralized bone matrix donors without bisphosphonate treatment had a mean age (and standard deviation) of 69.1 ± 2.5 years, and donors with bisphosphonate treatment had a mean age of 68.9 ± 2.0 years. Each pair included one donor known to have taken bisphosphonates and one who had not taken bisphosphonates. Demineralized bone matrix previously confirmed as osteoinductive was the positive control, and heat-inactivated demineralized bone matrix was the negative control. Demineralized bone matrix incubated with 1 mL of phosphate-buffered saline solution containing 0, 0.002, 2.0, or 2000 ng/mL of alendronate was also tested. Gelatin capsules containing 15 mg of demineralized bone matrix were implanted bilaterally in the gastrocnemius muscle of male nude mice (eight implants per group). The mice were killed thirty-five days after implantation, and hind limbs were recovered and processed for histological analysis. Osteoinductivity was measured with use of a qualitative score and by histomorphometry.ResultsNine of fifteen samples from donors who had had bisphosphonate treatment and ten of fifteen samples from patients who had not had bisphosphonate treatment were osteoinductive. Qualitative mean scores were comparable (1.7 ± 0.4 for those without bisphosphonates and 1.9 ± 0.7 for those with bisphosphonates). Osteoinductive demineralized bone matrix samples produced ossicles of comparable size, regardless of bisphosphonate usage. Histomorphometric measurements of the area of new bone formation and residual demineralized bone matrix were also comparable. The addition of alendronate to control demineralized bone matrix did not affect its osteoinductivity.ConclusionsDemineralized bone matrix samples from donors treated with bisphosphonates and donors not treated with bisphosphonates have the same ability to induce bone formation. However, it is not known if the quality of the new bone is affected, with subsequent consequences affecting bone remodeling.

Dataset Information

The clinical use of allografts, demineralized bone matrices, synthetic bone graft substitutes and osteoinductive growth factors: a survey study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets