Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26538088›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2016

Assessment of Methods for Rapid Intraoperative Concentration and Selection of Marrow-Derived Connective Tissue Progenitors for Bone Regeneration Using the Canine Femoral Multidefect Model.

Viviane Luangphakdy, Cynthia Boehm, Hui Pan, James Herrick, Phil Zaveri, George F Muschler

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Viviane Luangphakdy1 Department of Biomedical Engineering (ND20), Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland, Ohio.
Cynthia Boehm1 Department of Biomedical Engineering (ND20), Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland, Ohio.
Hui Pan1 Department of Biomedical Engineering (ND20), Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland, Ohio.
James Herrick2 Bone Histomorphometry Core Lab, Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine , Rochester, Minnesota.
Phil Zaveri1 Department of Biomedical Engineering (ND20), Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland, Ohio.
George F Muschler1 Department of Biomedical Engineering (ND20), Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland, Ohio.
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine · USCleveland Clinic · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment of large bone defects remains an unsolved clinical challenge, despite a wide array of existing bone graft materials and strategies. Local deficiency in osteogenic connective tissue progenitors (CTP-Os) due to tissue loss is one of the central biological barriers to bone regeneration. Density separation (DS) and selective retention (SR) represent two promising methods that can be used intraoperatively to rapidly concentrate cells and potentially select CTP-Os. This project was designed to compare DS and SR using the canine femoral multidefect (CFMD) model. Mineralized cancellous allograft (MCA) was used as a standardized scaffold for cell transplantation. Two experiments were performed using a cohort of six animals in each comparison. In Cohort I, unprocessed bone marrow aspirate (BMA) clot was compared to DS processing. MCA combined with raw BMA or DS processed cells produced a robust and advanced stage of bone regeneration throughout the defect in 4 weeks with reconstitution of hematopoietic marrow. However, the retention of DS processed cells and CTP-Os in the MCA matrix was low compared to BMA clot. In Cohort II, MCA with DS-T cells (addition of calcium chloride thrombin to induce clotting and enhance cell and CTP-O retention) was compared to MCA with SR cells. A mean of 276 ± 86 million nucleated cells and 29,030 ± 10,510 CTP-Os were implanted per defect in the DS-T group. A mean of 76 ± 42 million nucleated cells and 30,266 ± 15,850 CTP-Os were implanted in the SR group. Bone formation was robust and not different between treatments. Histologically, both groups demonstrated regeneration of hematopoietic marrow tissue. However, SR sites contained more hematopoietic vascular tissues, less fibrosis, and less residual allograft, particularly in the intramedullary cavity, suggesting a more advanced stage of remodeling (p = 0.04). These data demonstrate excellent overall performance of DS and SR processing methods. Both methods achieve a bone regeneration response that approaches the limits of performance that can be achieved in the CFMD model. Further advancement and comparison of these intraoperative bone marrow cell processing methods will require use of a larger and more biologically compromised defect site to guide the next steps of preclinical development and optimization.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationFemurStem Cell TransplantationAnimalsBone MarrowDogsMaleStem Cells

Identifiers

PMID26538088
PMCPMC5028130
OpenAlexW2280702705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.