Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Feb 1;35(1):E77-E86.
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001262.

A Review of Commercially Available Cellular-based Allografts

Affiliations
Review

A Review of Commercially Available Cellular-based Allografts

Zachariah W Pinter et al. Clin Spine Surg. .

Abstract

Study design: This was a narrative review.

Objective: This review discusses our current knowledge regarding cellular-based allografts while highlighting the key gaps in the literature that must be addressed before their widespread adoption.

Summary of background data: Iliac crest bone graft is the gold-standard bone graft material but is associated with donor site morbidity. Commonly utilized bone graft extenders such as demineralized bone matrix and bone morphogenetic protein have conflicting data supporting their efficacy and lack the osteogenic potential of new cellular-based allograft options.

Methods: An extensive literature review was performed. The literature was then summarized in accordance with the authors' clinical experience.

Results: There is not widespread evidence thus far that the addition of the osteogenic cellular component to allograft enhances spinal fusion, as a recent study by Bhamb and colleagues demonstrated superior bone formation during spine fusion in an aythmic rat model when demineralized bone matrix was used in comparison to Osteocel Plus. Furthermore, the postimplantation cellular viability and osteogenic and osteoinductive capacity of cellular-based allografts need to be definitively established, especially given that a recent study by Lina and colleagues demonstrated a paucity of bone marrow cell survival in an immunocompetent mouse posterolateral spinal fusion model.

Conclusions: This data indicates that the substantially increased cost of these cellular allografts may not be justified.

Level of evidence: Level V.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, et al. Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015. Spine J. 2019;44:369–376.
    1. Pennington Z, Mehta VA, Lubelski D, et al. Quality of life and cost implications of pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and its subsequent revision surgery. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:e592–e599.
    1. Friedlaender GE. Bone grafts: the basic science rationale for clinical applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:786–790.
    1. Arrington ED, Smith WJ, Chambers HG, et al. Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329:300–309.
    1. An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, et al. Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. Spine. 1995;20:2211–2216.

LinkOut - more resources