Osteoinductivity of commercially available demineralized bone matrix - Preparations in a spine fusion model

被引:164
|
作者
Peterson, B [1 ]
Whang, PG [1 ]
Iglesias, R [1 ]
Wang, JC [1 ]
Lieberman, JR [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Hlth Sci Ctr, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
来源
关键词
D O I
10.2106/00004623-200410000-00016
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Although autogenous bone is the most widely used graft material for spinal fusion, demineralized bone matrix preparations are available as alternatives or supplements to autograft. They are prepared by acid extraction of most of the mineralized component, with retention of the collagen and noncollagenous proteins, including growth factors. Differences in allograft processing methods among suppliers might yield products with different osteoinductive activities. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different commercially available demineralized bone matrix products for inducing spinal fusion in an athymic rat model. Methods: Sixty male athymic rats underwent spinal fusion and were divided into three groups of eighteen animals each. Group I received Grafton Putty; Group II, DBX Putty; and Group III, AlloMatrix Injectable Putty. A control group of six animals (Group IV) underwent decortication alone. Six animals from each of the three experimental groups were killed at each of three intervals (two, four, and eight weeks), and the six animals from the control group were killed at eight weeks. At each of the time-points, radiographic and histologic analysis and manual testing of the explanted spines were performed. Results: The spines in Group I demonstrated higher rates of radiographically evident fusion at eight weeks than did the spines in Group III or Group IV (p < 0.05). Manual testing of the spines at four weeks revealed variable fusion rates (five of six in Group I, two of six in Group II, and none of six in Group III). At eight weeks, all six spines in Group I, three of the six in Group II, and no spine in Group III or IV had fused. Histologic analysis of the spines in Groups I, II, and III demonstrated varying amounts of residual demineralized bone matrix and new bone formation. Group-I spines demonstrated the most new bone formation. Conclusions: This study demonstrated differences in the osteoinductive potentials of commercially available demineralized bone matrices in this animal model. Clinical Relevance: Comparative clinical testing of demineralized bone matrices is indicated in order to determine which preparations are best suited for promoting successful spinal fusion in humans.
引用
收藏
页码:2243 / 2250
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Use of demineralized bone matrix in ankle/hindfoot fusion
    Thordarson, DB
    Kuehn, S
    FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2003, 24 (07) : 557 - 560
  • [42] A XENOGENEIC MODEL FOR EVALUATING HUMAN DEMINERALIZED BONE PREPARATIONS
    MARINAK, KW
    TOWLE, HJ
    MELLONIG, JT
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1986, 65 : 295 - 295
  • [43] Efficacy comparison of Accell Evo3 and Grafton demineralized bone matrix putties against autologous bone in a rat posterolateral spine fusion model
    Brecevich, Antonio T.
    Kiely, Paul D.
    Yoon, B. Victor
    Nguyen, Joseph T.
    Cammisa, Frank P.
    Abjornson, Celeste
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 17 (06): : 855 - 862
  • [44] Examination of the Role of Cells in Commercially Available Cellular Allografts in Spine Fusion
    Abedi, Aidin
    Formanek, Blake
    Russell, Nicholas
    Vizesi, Frank
    Boden, Scott D.
    Wang, Jeffrey C.
    Buser, Zorica
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2020, 102 (24): : E135
  • [45] Augmenting local bone with Grafton demineralized bone matrix for posterolateral lumbar spine fusion: Avoiding second site autologous bone harvest
    Sassard, WR
    Eidman, DK
    Gray, PM
    Block, JE
    Russo, R
    Russell, JL
    Taboada, EM
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2000, 23 (10) : 1059 - 1064
  • [46] Quantification of various growth factors in different demineralized bone matrix preparations
    Wildemann, B.
    Kadow-Romacker, A.
    Haas, N. P.
    Schmidmaier, G.
    JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A, 2007, 81A (02) : 437 - 442
  • [47] DEMINERALIZED BONE-MATRIX - ENHANCEMENT OF SPINAL-FUSION
    FRENKEL, SR
    MOSKOVICH, R
    SPIVAK, J
    ZHANG, ZH
    PREWETT, AB
    SPINE, 1993, 18 (12) : 1634 - 1639
  • [48] Demineralized bone matrix composite grafting for posterolateral spinal fusion
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Stubbs, Harrison A.
    Block, Jon E.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2007, 30 (07) : 567 - 570
  • [49] Biomechanical and Radiographic Comparison of Demineralized Bone Matrix, and a Coralline Hydroxyapatite in a Rabbit Spinal Fusion Model
    Dodds, Robert A.
    York-Ely, Amanda M.
    Zhukauskas, Rasa
    Arola, Travis
    Howell, John
    Hartill, Caroline
    Cobb, Ronald R.
    Fox, Casey
    JOURNAL OF BIOMATERIALS APPLICATIONS, 2010, 25 (03) : 195 - 215
  • [50] Evaluation of a new formulation of demineralized bone matrix putty in a rabbit posterolateral spinal fusion model
    Kiely, Paul D.
    Brecevich, Antonio T.
    Taher, Fadi
    Nguyen, Joseph T.
    Cammisa, Frank P.
    Abjornson, Celeste
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2014, 14 (09): : 2155 - 2163