Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21811821›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2012

Evaluation of the in vitro cell-material interactions and in vivo osteo-integration of a spinal acrylic bone cement.

Sophie Verrier, Lisa Hughes, Antoine Alves, Marianna Peroglio, Mauro Alini, Andreas Boger

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sophie VerrierAO Research Institute, Clavadelerstrasse 8, 7270, Davos Platz, Switzerland. sophie.verrier@aofoundation.org
Lisa Hughes
Antoine Alves
Marianna Peroglio
Mauro Alini
Andreas Boger
AO Foundation · CHNAMSA (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPolymethylmethacrylate bone cements have proven performance in arthroplasty and represent a common bone filler, e.g. in vertebroplasty. However, acrylic cements are still subject to controversy concerning their exothermic reaction and osteo-integration potential. Therefore, we submitted a highly filled acrylic cement to a systematic investigation on the cell-material and tissue-implant response in vitro and in vivo. MATERIALS AND

methodsCured Vertecem V+ Cements were characterized by electron microscopy. Human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell morphology, growth and differentiation on the cured cement were followed for 28 days in vitro. The uncured cement was injected in an ovine cancellous bone defect and analysed 4 and 26 weeks post-implantation.

resultsThe rough surface of the cement allowed for good stem cells adhesion in vitro. Up-regulation of alkaline phosphatase was detected after 8 days of incubation. No adverse local effects were observed macroscopically and microscopically following 4 and 26 weeks of implantation of the cement into drill-hole defects in ovine distal femoral epiphysis. Direct bone apposition onto the implant surface was observed resulting in extended signs of osteo-integration over time (35.2 ± 24.2% and 88.8 ± 8.8% at week 4 and 26, respectively).

conclusionContrary to the established opinion concerning bony tissue response to implanted acrylic bone cements, we observed an early cell-implant in vitro interaction leading to cell growth and differentiation and significant signs of osteo-integration for this acrylic cement using standardized methods. Few outlined limitations, such as the use of low cement volumes, have to be considered in the interpretation of the study results.

Indexed as

Polymethyl MethacrylateAnimalsBone Marrow CellsCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationCells, CulturedFemurHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMaterials TestingMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningSheepPolymethyl Methacrylate

Identifiers

PMID21811821
PMCPMC3535219
OpenAlexW2052581599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.