Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25522168›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2014

Evaluation of posterolateral lumbar fusion in sheep using mineral scaffolds seeded with cultured bone marrow cells.

María D Cuenca-López, José A Andrades, Santiago Gómez, Plácido Zamora-Navas, Enrique Guerado, Nuria Rubio, Jerónimo Blanco, José Becerra

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Stem Cells and Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2021
    Article
  2. History of Spinal Fusion: Where We Came from and Where We Are Going.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Stem Cells in Spinal Fusion.Global spine journal · 2017
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

María D Cuenca-LópezLaboratory of Bioengineering and Tissue Regeneration (LABRET), Department of Cell Biology, Genetics and Physiology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, Málaga 29071, Spain. lolincuenca@hotmail.com.
José A AndradesLaboratory of Bioengineering and Tissue Regeneration (LABRET), Department of Cell Biology, Genetics and Physiology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, Málaga 29071, Spain. andrades@uma.es.
Santiago GómezDepartment of Pathological Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cádiz, Cádiz 11003, Spain. santiago.gomez@uca.es.
Plácido Zamora-NavasNetworking Biomedical Research Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Madrid 28029, Spain. plazamora@gmail.com.
Enrique GueradoNetworking Biomedical Research Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Madrid 28029, Spain. eguerado@hcs.es.
Nuria RubioNetworking Biomedical Research Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Madrid 28029, Spain. nrvnqb@cid.csic.es.
Jerónimo BlancoNetworking Biomedical Research Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Madrid 28029, Spain. jeronimo.blanco@iqac.csic.es.
José BecerraLaboratory of Bioengineering and Tissue Regeneration (LABRET), Department of Cell Biology, Genetics and Physiology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, Málaga 29071, Spain. jeronimo.blanco@iqac.csic.es.
Biomedical Research Networking Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine · ESUniversidad de Málaga · ESHospital Costa del Sol · ESUniversidad de Cádiz · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of hybrid constructs in comparison to bone grafts (autograft and allograft) for posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) in sheep, instrumented with transpedicular screws and bars. Hybrid constructs using cultured bone marrow (BM) mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have shown promising results in several bone healing models. In particular, hybrid constructs made by calcium phosphate-enriched cells have had similar fusion rates to bone autografts in posterolateral lumbar fusion in sheep. In our study, four experimental spinal fusions in two animal groups were compared in sheep: autograft and allograft (reference group), hydroxyapatite scaffold, and hydroxyapatite scaffold seeded with cultured and osteoinduced bone marrow MSCs (hybrid construct). During the last three days of culture, dexamethasone (dex) and beta-glycerophosphate (β-GP) were added to potentiate osteoinduction. The two experimental situations of each group were tested in the same spinal segment (L4-L5). Spinal fusion and bone formation were studied by clinical observation, X-ray, computed tomography (CT), histology, and histomorphometry. Lumbar fusion rates assessed by CT scan and histology were higher for autograft and allograft (70%) than for mineral scaffold alone (22%) and hybrid constructs (35%). The quantity of new bone formation was also higher for the reference group, quite similar in both (autograft and allograft). Although the hybrid scaffold group had a better fusion rate than the non-hybrid scaffold group, the histological analysis revealed no significant differences between them in terms of quantity of bone formation. The histology results suggested that mineral scaffolds were partly resorbed in an early phase, and included in callus tissues. Far from the callus area the hydroxyapatite alone did not generate bone around it, but the hybrid scaffold did. In nude mice, labeled cells were induced to differentiate in vivo and monitored by bioluminescence imaging (BLI). Although the cultured MSCs had osteogenic potential, their contribution to spinal fusion when seeded in mineral scaffolds, in the conditions disclosed here, remains uncertain probably due to callus interference with the scaffolds. At present, bone autografts are better than hybrid constructs for posterolateral lumbar fusion, but we should continue to seek better conditions for efficient tissue engineering.

Indexed as

Tissue ScaffoldsAnimalsBone Marrow CellsCell DifferentiationFemaleLuminescent MeasurementsMiceMice, NudeMineralsMolecular ImagingOsteogenesisSheepSpinal FusionTomography, X-Ray ComputedMinerals

Identifiers

PMID25522168
PMCPMC4284771
OpenAlexW2090091203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.