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.

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.

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.

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.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a cellular allogeneic bone matrix in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease and lumbar spinal instability.

BACKGROUND: Cellular allogeneic bone grafts are used as a biologic adjuvant in lumbar spinal fusions. The clinical use of a minimally invasive extreme lateral approach to the lumbar spine has been widely adopted; however, there are few clinical studies that have documented the clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with the use of cellular allografts as an adjunct to fusion in this advanced surgical approach. METHODS: A consecutive series of 67 patients (34 males and 33 females) with a mean age of 66.8 years (26-85 years) who underwent single- or multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with supplemental posterior segmental spinal fixation using a cellular allogeneic bone matrix as the only bone graft material was retrospectively reviewed by a single surgeon. Patients' preoperative and 3- and 12-month postoperative data were studied. All patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months. Standardized clinical outcome measures-36-Item Short Form Surgery (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain scores-were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. An average of 2.25 levels was treated per patient (151 total levels). Fusion status was assessed by dynamic radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans. The statistical method used to identify the significance of the observed changes in clinical outcomes was the paired 2-sided t-tests. Significance was ascribed to P values <0.05. RESULTS: Fusion was achieved at 142 levels (142/151; 94%). Eight levels (8/151; 5.3%) showed partial fusions and one patient (single level) had no fusion. In the group of patients with fusions, the mean back and leg pain scores showed improvement from preoperative scores at both 3 and 12 months (P<0.001). Functional outcomes showed similar clinical success in both in SF-36 and ODI scores. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a cellular allogeneic bone matrix provided osteoconductive and osteoinductive components for successful spine fusions and was associated with statistically significant improvement in SF-36, VAS, and ODI scores.