Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Cellular bone matrices: viable stem cell-containing bone graft substitutes

Skovrlj B., Guzman JZ., Al Maaieh M., Cho SK., Iatridis JC., Qureshi SA.

Narrative Review on Back & Spine, published in Spine J (2014) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Spine J (2014)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
24929059
PMCID
PMC4402977
DOI
10.1016/j.spinee.2014.05.024
Citations
48

Abstract (original English)

Background context Advances in the field of stem cell technology have stimulated the development and increased use of allogenic bone grafts containing live mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), also known as cellular bone matrices (CBMs). It is estimated that CBMs comprise greater than 17% of all bone grafts and bone graft substitutes used. Purpose To critically evaluate CBMs, specifically their technical specifications, existing published data supporting their use, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, cost, potential pitfalls, and other aspects pertaining to their use. Study design Areview of literature. Methods A series of Ovid, Medline, and Pubmed-National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) searches were performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Specific technical information on each CBM was obtained by direct communication from the companies marketing the individual products. Results Five different CBMs are currently available for use in spinal fusion surgery. There is a wide variation between the products with regard to the average donor age at harvest, total cellular concentration, percentage of MSCs, shelf life, and cell viability after defrosting. Three retrospective studies evaluating CBMs and fusion have

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Bone MatrixMesenchymal Stem CellsHumansBone SubstitutesSpinal FusionBone TransplantationUnited States

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research