ArticleJOR spine2020
Comparing cellular bone matrices for posterolateral spinal fusion in a rat model.
Article in JOR spine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fracture healing: from molecular and cellular mechanisms to therapeutic strategies.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Osteogenic effect of platelet-rich fibrin on a bone defect model of long bone in rabbits.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Transforming spinal surgery with innovations in biologics and additive manufacturing.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Radiographic Fusion Outcomes for Trinity Cellular Based Allograft versus Local Bone in Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Manufacturing artificial bone allografts: a perspective.Biomaterials translational · 2022Review
- Commercial Bone Grafts Claimed as an Alternative to Autografts: Current Trends for Clinical Applications in Orthopaedics.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Allografts and Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- The temporal and spatial expression of sclerostin and Wnt signaling factors during the maturation of posterolateral lumbar spine fusions.JOR spine · 2021Article
- Improving reproducibility in spine research.JOR spine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCellular bone matrices (CBM) are allograft products that provide three components essential to new bone formation: an osteoconductive scaffold, extracellular growth factors for cell proliferation and differentiation, and viable cells with osteogenic potential. This is an emerging technology being applied to augment spinal fusion procedures as an alternative to autografts.
methodsWe aim to compare the ability of six commercially-available human CBMs (Trinity ELITE®, ViviGen®, Cellentra®, Osteocel® Pro, Bio4® and Map3®) to form a stable spinal fusion using an athymic rat model of posterolateral fusion. Iliac crest bone from syngeneic rats was used as a control to approximate the human gold standard. The allografts were implanted at L4-5 according to vendor specifications in male athymic rats, with 15 rats in each group. MicroCT scans were performed at 48 hours and 6 weeks post-implantation. The rats were euthanized 6 weeks after surgery and the lumbar spines were harvested for X-ray, manual palpation and histology analysis by blinded reviewers.
resultsBy manual palpation, five of 15 rats of the syngeneic bone group were fused at 6 weeks. While Trinity ELITE had eight of 15 and Cellentra 11 of 15 rats with stable fusion, only 2 of 15 of ViviGen-implanted spines were fused and zero of 15 of the Osteocel Pro, Bio4 and Map3 produced stable fusion. MicroCT analysis indicated that total bone volume increased from day 0 to week 6 for all groups except syngeneic bone group. Trinity ELITE (65%) and Cellentra (73%) had significantly greater bone volume increases over all other implants, which was consistent with the histological analysis.
conclusionTrinity ELITE and Cellentra were significantly better than other implants at forming new bone and achieving spinal fusion in this rat model at week 6. These results suggest that there may be large differences in the ability of different CBMs to elicit a successful fusion in the posterolateral spine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.