Search

Background: Mounting evidence demonstrates a promising safety and efficacy profile for spinal fusion procedures using cellular bone allograft (CBA). However, limited data exists on fusion outcomes stratified by surgical approach. The current study investigates the effectiveness of CBA in lumbar spinal fusion by surgical approach (ie, anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches). Methods: Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (Trinity Elite) were enrolled into a prospective, multi- center, open-label clinical study (NCT 02969616). Fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and computed tomography images. Clinical outcome measures included quality of life (QoL; EQ5D), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) for back pain and leg pain). Patient data extending to 24 months were analyzed in a post-hoc analysis. Results: A total of 252 patients underwent interbody fusion (159 women; 93 men). Patients had a mean age of 58.3 years (SD 12.5), height of 168.3 cm (SD 10.2), and weight of 87.3 kg (SD 20.0) with a body mass index of 30.8 kg/m² (SD 6.5). At 12 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.5%; fusion success was 98.1%, 100.0%, and 97.9% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. At 24 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.9%; fusion success was 97.9%, 100.0%, and 98.8% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. The surgical approach did not significantly impact fusion success. A significant (P < 0.0001) improvement in QoL, pain, and disability scores was also observed. Significant differences in the ODI, VAS, and EQ5D were observed between the treatment groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions: CBA represents an attractive alternative to autograft alone, reporting a high rate of successful fusion and clinical outcomes across various surgical approaches. Clinical Relevance: The use of CBA for spinal fusion procedures, regardless of surgical approach, provides high rates of fusion with a favorable safety profile and improved patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The current report investigates fusion rates and patient-reported outcomes following lumbar spinal surgery using cellular bone allograft (CBA) in patients with risk factors for non-union. Methods A prospective, open label study was conducted in subjects undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (NCT 02969616) to assess fusion success rates and patient-reported outcomes in subjects with risk factors for non-union. Subjects were categorized into low-risk (≤ 1 risk factors) and high-risk (> 1 risk factors) groups. Radiographic fusion status was evaluated by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and CT scans. Patient-reported outcome measures included quality of life (EQ-5D), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for back and leg pain. Adverse event reporting was conducted throughout 24-months of follow-up. Results A total of 274 subjects were enrolled: 140 subjects (51.1%) were categorized into the high-risk group (> 1 risk factor) and 134 subjects (48.9%) into the low-risk group (≤ 1 risk factors). The overall mean age at screening was 58.8 years (SD 12.5) with a higher distribution of females (63.1%) than males (36.9%). No statistical difference in fusion rates were observed between the low-risk (90.0%) and high-risk (93.9%) groups (p > 0.05). A statistically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes (EQ-5D, ODI and VAS) was observed at all time points (p

Background: The current report investigates fusion rates and patient-reported outcomes following lumbar spinal surgery using cellular bone allograft (CBA) in patients with risk factors for non-union. Methods: A prospective, open label study was conducted in subjects undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (NCT 02969616) to assess fusion success rates and patient-reported outcomes in subjects with risk factors for non-union. Subjects were categorized into low-risk (≤ 1 risk factors) and high-risk (> 1 risk factors) groups. Radiographic fusion status was evaluated by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and CT scans. Patient-reported outcome measures included quality of life (EQ-5D), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for back and leg pain. Adverse event reporting was conducted throughout 24-months of follow-up. Results: A total of 274 subjects were enrolled: 140 subjects (51.1%) were categorized into the high-risk group (> 1 risk factor) and 134 subjects (48.9%) into the low-risk group (≤ 1 risk factors). The overall mean age at screening was 58.8 years (SD 12.5) with a higher distribution of females (63.1%) than males (36.9%). No statistical difference in fusion rates were observed between the low-risk (90.0%) and high-risk (93.9%) groups (p > 0.05). A statistically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes (EQ-5D, ODI and VAS) was observed at all time points (p < 0.05) in both low and high-risk groups. The low-risk group showed enhanced improvement at multiple timepoints in EQ-5D, ODI, VAS-Back pain and VAS-Leg pain scores compared to the high-risk group (p < 0.05). The number of AEs were similar among risk groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrates high fusion rates following lumbar spinal surgery using CBA, regardless of associated risk factors. Patient reported outcomes and fusion rates were not adversely affected by risk factor profiles. Trial registration: NCT 02969616 (21/11/2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Autologous bone grafts are the gold standard for spinal fusion; however, harvesting autologous bone can result in donor site infection, hematomas, increased operative time, and prolonged pain. Cellular bone allografts (CBAs) are a viable alternative that avoids the need for bone harvesting and may increase fusion success alone or when used as an adjunct material. The present study examined the efficacy and safety of CBA when used as an adjunct graft material to lumbar arthrodesis. Methods A prospective, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial (NCT 02969616) was conducted in adult subjects (> 18 years of age) undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA graft (CBA used as primary (≥ 50% by volume), with augmentation up to 50%). Radiographic fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and CT scans. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) score for back and leg pain. Adverse events were assessed through the 24-month follow-up period. The presented data represents an analysis of available subjects (n = 86) who completed 24 months of postoperative follow-up at the time the data was locked for analysis. Results Postoperative 24-month fusion success was achieved in 95.3% of subjects (n = 82/86) undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. Clinical outcomes showed statistically significant improvements in ODI (46.3% improvement), VAS-Back pain (75.5% improvement), and VAS-Leg pain (85.5% improvement) (p

Background: Autologous bone grafts are the gold standard for spinal fusion; however, harvesting autologous bone can result in donor site infection, hematomas, increased operative time, and prolonged pain. Cellular bone allografts (CBAs) are a viable alternative that avoids the need for bone harvesting and may increase fusion success alone or when used as an adjunct material. The present study examined the efficacy and safety of CBA when used as an adjunct graft material to lumbar arthrodesis. Methods: A prospective, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial (NCT 02969616) was conducted in adult subjects (> 18 years of age) undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA graft (CBA used as primary (≥ 50% by volume), with augmentation up to 50%). Radiographic fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and CT scans. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) score for back and leg pain. Adverse events were assessed through the 24-month follow-up period. The presented data represents an analysis of available subjects (n = 86) who completed 24 months of postoperative follow-up at the time the data was locked for analysis. Results: Postoperative 24-month fusion success was achieved in 95.3% of subjects (n = 82/86) undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. Clinical outcomes showed statistically significant improvements in ODI (46.3% improvement), VAS-Back pain (75.5% improvement), and VAS-Leg pain (85.5% improvement) (p < 0.01) scores at Month 24. No subject characteristics or surgical factors were associated with pseudoarthrosis. A favorable safety profile with a limited number of adverse events was observed. Conclusions: The use of CBA as an adjunct graft material showed high rates of successful lumbar arthrodesis and significant improvements in pain and disability scores. CBA provides an alternative to autograft with comparable fusion success rates and clinical benefits. Trial registration: NCT 02969616. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While autologous bone grafts remain the gold standard for spinal fusion procedures, harvesting autologous bone is associated with significant complications, including donor site infection, hematomas, increased operative time, and prolonged pain. Cellular bone allograft (CBA) presents an alternative to autologous bone harvesting, with a favorable efficacy and safety profile. The current study further investigates CBA as an adjunct to lumbar spinal fusion procedures. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical study was conducted in subjects undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (NCT 02969616). Radiographic fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and CT scans. Clinical outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Adverse-event reporting was conducted throughout 12 months of follow-up. Available subject data at 12 months were analyzed. Results: A total of 274 subjects were enrolled into the study, with available data from 201 subjects (73.3%) who completed 12 months of postoperative radiographic and clinical evaluation at the time of analysis. Subjects had a mean age of 60.2 ± 11.5 years. A higher number of women (n = 124, 61.7%) than men (n = 77, 38.3%) were enrolled, with a collective mean BMI of 30.6 + 6.5 kg/m2 (range 18.0–51.4). At month 12, successful fusion was achieved in 90.5% of subjects. A significant (p < 0.001) improvement in ODI, VAS-back, and VAS-leg clinical outcomes was also observed compared to baseline scores. One adverse event related to CBA (postoperative radiculopathy) was reported, with surgical exploration demonstrating interbody extrusion of graft material. This subject reported successful fusion at month 12. Conclusions: CBA represents a viable substitute for harvesting of autograft alone with a high rate of successful fusion and significant improvements in subject-reported outcomes, such as pain and disability. Positive benefit was observed in subjects reporting single and multiple risk factors for pseudoarthrosis.

Background: While autologous bone grafts remain the gold standard for spinal fusion procedures, harvesting autologous bone is associated with significant complications, including donor site infection, hematomas, increased operative time, and prolonged pain. Cellular bone allograft (CBA) presents an alternative to autologous bone harvesting, with a favorable efficacy and safety profile. The current study further investigates CBA as an adjunct to lumbar spinal fusion procedures. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical study was conducted in subjects undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (NCT 02969616). Radiographic fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and CT scans. Clinical outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Adverse-event reporting was conducted throughout 12 months of follow-up. Available subject data at 12 months were analyzed. Results: A total of 274 subjects were enrolled into the study, with available data from 201 subjects (73.3%) who completed 12 months of postoperative radiographic and clinical evaluation at the time of analysis. Subjects had a mean age of 60.2 ± 11.5 years. A higher number of women (n = 124, 61.7%) than men (n = 77, 38.3%) were enrolled, with a collective mean BMI of 30.6 + 6.5 kg/m2 (range 18.0–51.4). At month 12, successful fusion was achieved in 90.5% of subjects. A significant (p < 0.001) improvement in ODI, VAS-back, and VAS-leg clinical outcomes was also observed compared to baseline scores. One adverse event related to CBA (postoperative radiculopathy) was reported, with surgical exploration demonstrating interbody extrusion of graft material. This subject reported successful fusion at month 12. Conclusions: CBA represents a viable substitute for harvesting of autograft alone with a high rate of successful fusion and significant improvements in subject-reported outcomes, such as pain and disability. Positive benefit was observed in subjects reporting single and multiple risk factors for pseudoarthrosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To evaluate the comparative abilities of commercially available, viable, cellular bone allografts to promote posterolateral spinal fusion., 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: 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, P < .0007, and Evolution, P < .0013). The mineralized cancellous bone component of the allografts confounded radiographic analysis, but Trinity Evolution (0.452 ± 0.064) and Trinity ELITE (0.536 ± 0.109) allografts produced statistically significantly higher bone fusion mass volumes measured by quantitative micro-CT than did syngeneic bone (0.292 ± 0.109, P < .0001 for ELITE and P < .003 for Evolution) and Osteocel Plus (0.258 ± 0.103, P < .0001). Semiquantitative histopathological scores supported these findings because the total bone and bone marrow scores reflected significantly better new bone and marrow formation in the Trinity groups than in the Osteocel Plus group., 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: The superior fusion rate of Trinity cellular bone allografts may lead to better clinical outcome of spinal fusion surgeries., Competing Interests: 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., (©International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2020.)