Autologous Stem Cells in Cervical Spine Fusion

Overview

Journal Global Spine J

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2020 Sep 23

PMID 32964752

Citations 1

Authors

Patrick C Hsieh

Andrew S Chung

Darrel Brodke

Jong-Beom Park

Andrea C Skelly

Erika D Brodt

Ki Chang

Zorica Buser

Hans Joerg Meisel

S Timothy Yoon

Jeffrey C Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Study Design: Systematic review.

Objectives: To systematically review, critically appraise and synthesize evidence on use of stem cells from autologous stem cells from bone marrow aspirate, adipose, or any other autologous sources for fusion in the cervical spine compared with other graft materials.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for literature published through October 31, 2018 and through February 20, 2020 for EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov comparing autologous cell sources for cervical spine fusion to other graft options.

Results: From 36 potentially relevant citations identified, 10 studies on cervical fusion met the inclusion criteria set a priori. Two retrospective cohort studies, one comparing cancellous bone marrow (CBM) versus hydroxyapatite (HA) and the other bone marrow aspirate (BMA) combined with autograft and HA versus autograft and HA alone, were identified. No statistical differences were seen between groups in either study for improvement in function, symptoms, or fusion; however, in the study evaluating BMA, the authors reported a statistically greater fusion rate and probability of fusion over time in the BMA versus the non-BMA group. Across case series evaluating BMA, authors reported improved function and pain and fusion ranged from 84% to 100% across the studies. In general, complications were poorly reported.

Conclusions: The overall quality (strength) of evidence of effectiveness and safety of autologous BMA for cervical arthrodesis in the current available literature was very low. Based on currently available data, firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness or safety of BMA in cervical fusions cannot be made.

Citing Articles

Global Practices and Preferences in the Use of Osteobiologics for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Ambrosio L, Viswanadha A, Vergroesen P, Buser Z, Meisel H, Santesso N Global Spine J. 2025; :21925682251322417.

PMID: 39967506 PMC: 11836964. DOI: 10.1177/21925682251322417.

AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases.

Meisel H, Jain A, Wu Y, Martin C, Cabrera J, Muthu S Global Spine J. 2024; 14(2_suppl):6S-13S.

PMID: 38421322 PMC: 10913909. DOI: 10.1177/21925682231178204.

References

Shriver M, Lewis D, Kshettry V, Rosenbaum B, Benzel E, Mroz T . Pseudoarthrosis rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis. Spine J. 2015; 15(9):2016-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.05.010. View

BISHOP R, Moore K, Hadley M . Anterior cervical interbody fusion using autogeneic and allogeneic bone graft substrate: a prospective comparative analysis. J Neurosurg. 1996; 85(2):206-10. DOI: 10.3171/jns.1996.85.2.0206. View

Epstein N . A Review of Complication Rates for Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion (ACDF). Surg Neurol Int. 2019; 10:100. PMC: 6744804. DOI: 10.25259/SNI-191-2019. View

Khoueir P, Oh B, DiRisio D, Wang M . Multilevel anterior cervical fusion using a collagen-hydroxyapatite matrix with iliac crest bone marrow aspirate: an 18-month follow-up study. Neurosurgery. 2007; 61(5):963-70. DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000303192.64802.c6. View

Oliver J, Goncalves S, Kerezoudis P, Alvi M, Freedman B, Nassr A . Comparison of Outcomes for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion With and Without Anterior Plate Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 43(7):E413-E422. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002441. View

Tuchman A, Brodke D, Youssef J, Meisel H, Dettori J, Park J . Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review. Global Spine J. 2017; 7(1):59-70. PMC: 5400159. DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1580610. View

Wang M, Chou D, Chang C, Hirpara A, Liu Y, Chan A . Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed using structural allograft or polyetheretherketone: pseudarthrosis and revision surgery rates with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 32(4):562-569. DOI: 10.3171/2019.9.SPINE19879. View

Guyatt G, Oxman A, Akl E, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J . GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4):383-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026. View

Fernyhough J, Schimandle J, Weigel M, Edwards C, Levine A . Chronic donor site pain complicating bone graft harvesting from the posterior iliac crest for spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992; 17(12):1474-80. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199212000-00006. View

10.

Phillips F, Carlson G, Emery S, Bohlman H . Anterior cervical pseudarthrosis. Natural history and treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22(14):1585-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199707150-00012. View

11.

Sudprasert W, Kunakornsawat S . A preliminary study of three and four levels degenerative cervical spondylosis treated with peek cages and anterior cervical plate. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012; 95(7):909-16. View

12.

Ofman J, Sullivan S, Neumann P, Chiou C, Henning J, Wade S . Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003; 9(1):53-61. PMC: 10437166. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.1.53. View

13.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann H, Oxman A, Kunz R, Brozek J . GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4):401-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. View

14.

Acharya S, Kumar S, Srivastava A, Tandon R . Early results of one-level cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone cervical cage and bone marrow soaked tricalcium phosphate. Acta Orthop Belg. 2011; 77(2):218-23. View

15.

Yoon S, Hashimoto R, Raich A, Shaffrey C, Rhee J, Riew K . Outcomes after laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(22 Suppl 1):S183-94. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb7c. View

16.

Wang J, McDonough P, Endow K, Delamarter R . Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(1):41-5. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200001010-00009. View

17.

Young W, Rosenwasser R . An early comparative analysis of the use of fibular allograft versus autologous iliac crest graft for interbody fusion after anterior cervical discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(9):1123-4. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199307000-00002. View

18.

Minamide A, Yoshida M, Kawakami M, Yamasaki S, Kojima H, Hashizume H . The use of cultured bone marrow cells in type I collagen gel and porous hydroxyapatite for posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(10):1134-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000162394.75425.04. View

19.

Epstein N . Preliminary documentation of the comparable efficacy of vitoss versus NanOss bioactive as bone graft expanders for posterior cervical fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 2015; 6(Suppl 4):S164-71. PMC: 4431045. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.156559. View

20.

Epstein N . High posterior cervical fusion rates with iliac autograft and Nanoss/bone marrow aspirate. Surg Neurol Int. 2017; 8:152. PMC: 5535513. DOI: 10.4103/sni.sni_241_17. View