Characterization of an advanced viable bone allograft with preserved native bone-forming cells.

Bone grafts are widely used to successfully restore structure and function to patients with a broad range of musculoskeletal ailments and bone defects. Autogenous bone grafts are historically preferred because they theoretically contain the three essential components of bone healing (ie, osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, and osteogenicity), but they have inherent limitations. Allograft bone derived from deceased human donors is one alternative that is also capable of providing both an osteoconductive scaffold and osteoinductive potential but, until recently, lacked the osteogenic component of bone healing. Relatively new, cellular bone allografts (CBAs) were designed to address this need by preserving viable cells. Although most commercially-available CBAs feature mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), osteogenic differentiation is time-consuming and complex. A more advanced graft, a viable bone allograft (VBA), was thus developed to preserve lineage-committed bone-forming cells, which may be more suitable than MSCs to promote bone fusion. The purpose of this paper was to present the results of preclinical research characterizing VBA. Through a comprehensive series of in vitro and in vivo assays, the present results demonstrate that VBA in its final form is capable of providing all three essential bone remodeling properties and contains viable lineage-committed bone-forming cells, which do not elicit an immune response. The results are discussed in the context of clinical evidence published to date that further supports VBA as a potential alternative to autograft without the associated drawbacks.

A 24-month retrospective update: follow-up hospitalization charges and readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to build upon previously-reported 12-month findings by retrospectively comparing 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges and potentially-relevant readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries that employed either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a nationwide healthcare system database. METHODS: A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2 in the original study, of whom 3,792 patients (23.4%) were identified in the current study with all-cause readmissions during the 24-month follow-up period. Confounding baseline patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics found in the original study were used to adjust multivariate regression models comparing differences in 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges (in 2020 US dollars) and lengths of stay (LOS; in days) between the groups. Differences in potentially-relevant follow-up readmissions were also compared, and all analyses were repeated in the subset of patients who only received treatment at a single level of the spine. RESULTS: The adjusted cumulative mean 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges in the full cohort were significantly lower in the V-CBA group ($99,087) versus the rhBMP-2 group ($124,389; P < 0.0001), and this pattern remained in the single-level cohort (V-CBA = $104,906 vs rhBMP-2 = $125,311; P = 0.0006). There were no differences between groups in adjusted cumulative mean LOS in either cohort. Differences in the rates of follow-up readmissions aligned with baseline comorbidities originally reported for the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were significantly lower for V-CBA patients in the full cohort (10.12% vs 12.00%; P = 0.0002) and similar between groups in the single-level cohort, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes, including bony fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US is associated with substantially lower 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of subsequent lumbar fusion procedures and potentially-relevant readmissions.

A large database study of hospitalization charges and follow-up re-admissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to retrospectively compare initial procedure and 12-month follow-up hospitalization charges and resource utilization (lengths of stay; LOS) for lumbar fusion surgeries using either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a large US healthcare system database. Potentially relevant re-admissions during the follow-up period were also assessed. METHODS: A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2, of whom 3503 (21.66%) patients had follow-up re-admission data. Initial patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics were assessed to determine confounding factors. Multivariate regression modeling compared differences in hospitalization charges (in 2018 US dollars) and LOS (in days) between the groups, as well as incidences of potentially relevant re-admissions during the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The adjusted mean initial procedure and 12-month follow-up hospital charges were significantly lower in the V-CBA group versus the rhBMP-2 group ($109,061 and $108,315 versus $160,191 and $130,406, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). This disparity remained in an ad hoc comparison of charges for initial single-level treatments only (V-CBA = $103,064, rhBMP-2 = $149,620; P < 0.0001). The adjusted mean initial LOS were significantly lower in the V-CBA group (3.77 days) versus the rhBMP-2 group (3.88 days; P < 0.0001), but significantly higher for the cumulative follow-up hospitalizations in the 12-month follow-up period (7.87 versus 7.46 days, respectively; P < 0.0001). Differences in rates of follow-up re-admissions aligned with comorbidities at the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were comparable, but significantly lower for V-CBA patients who had undergone single-level treatments only, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of initial comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US may result in substantially lower overall hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of 12-month re-admissions and subsequent lumbar fusion procedures.

Evaluation of glycerol-preserved bone allografts in cervical spine fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECT: Bone allografts used for interbody spinal fusion are often preserved through either freeze drying or lowtemperature freezing, each having disadvantages related to graft preparation time and material properties. In response, a glycerol preservation treatment has been developed to maintain the biomechanical properties of allografts at ambient temperatures, requiring no thawing or rehydration and minimal rinsing prior to implantation. The authors conducted a prospective randomized study to compare the clinical results of glycerol-preserved Cloward dowels and those of freezedried Cloward dowels in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The primary outcome measures were evidence of fusion and graft subsidence, and the secondary outcome measures included adverse events, pain, and neck disability scores. METHODS: Of 106 patients, 53 (113 levels of surgery) were randomly assigned to the glycerol-preserved graft group and 53 (114 levels of surgery) to the freeze-dried graft group. Subsidence was assessed at 3 and 6 months after implantation. Evidence of fusion was evaluated radiographically at 6 months postimplantation. Subsidence was quantitatively assessed based on physical measurements obtained from radiographs by using calibrated comparators, whereas fusion was also evaluated visually. Surgeons were blinded to treatment type during visual and physical assessments of the patients and the radiographs. RESULTS: No one in either group had evidence of complete nonunion according to radiographic evaluation at the 6-month follow-up. Average subsidence for all graft-treated levels was 2.11 mm for the glycerol-preserved group and 2.73 mm for the freeze-dried group at the 3-month follow-up and 2.13 and 2.83 mm at the 6-month follow-up, respectively. The 2 treatment groups were statistically equivalent (p = 0.2127 and 0.1705 for the 3- and 6-month follow-up, respectively). No differences were noted between the graft types in terms of adverse event incidence or severity. CONCLUSIONS: Glycerol-preserved bone allografts exhibit fusion results and subsidence values similar to those of their freeze-dried counterparts, potentially more favorable biomechanical properties, and significantly shorter preparation times.