Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

More than 50% of patients complain of postoperative donor site morbidity following iliac crest bone graft harvest, and recent discoveries have identified adverse outcomes following bone morphogenetic protein use in spine fusion. This has led the spine community to turn toward alternative methods to promote fusion following spine surgery. The present article reviews numerous studies that have shown the osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). MSCs have been used with both in vitro and in vivo models and have involved animal studies ranging from rats to macaque monkeys to successfully induce bone regeneration in lesions of the tibia and spine. There is no fear of graft rejection, as there may be with other allograft materials, because neither undifferentiated nor differentiated MSCs elicit lymphocyte response when transplanted; they tend to alter the cytokine profile to an anti-inflammatory state. Early clinical trials are underway with various commercially available MSC formulations. Although there is much enthusiasm, it is integral that the spine surgery community carefully evaluate the use of MSCs in spine fusion through well-designed and executed studies to determine the efficacy and safety profiles in spine surgery patients.

Keywords

mesenchymal stem cells allograft spine fusion osteogenic osteoinductive

There are ~151,000 lumbar fusions performed annually in the United States,¹ and a large number of these patients suffer from considerable morbidity due to the harvesting of autogenous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG). Fifteen to 60% of patients complain of pain at the donor site 1 to 2 years following surgery.²,³,⁴,⁵,⁶ Pseudarthrosis rates following ICBG fusion have been reported to occur in as many as 15% of patients, with some requiring subsequent revision surgeries, with additional associated morbidity.² Complication rates due to the iliac crest harvest have varied widely, ranging from 9.4 to 49%.⁶ In one prospective study,⁶ at 12 months following surgery, 16.5% of patients reported pain that was more severe at the harvest site than the primary surgical site, almost 30% reporting continued numbness, and 15% had some difficulty walking. Although initial studies showed promise that the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine surgery could obviate the need for the ICBG and its associated pain, the recent controversy surrounding its potential risks (e.g., radiculopathy, retrograde ejaculation, etc.) encourages the spine surgery community to consider alternative approaches to enhance spine fusion.

Identifying ideal spine fusion extenders (i.e., products that can be used alongside the bone graft) as well as bone graft replacements that can potentially replace ICBG may potentially eliminate the associated morbidity with the current standard procedure. The ideal graft replacement would mirror iliac crest; that is, it would have osteoconductive, osteogenic, and osteoinductive capacity.

Adult mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have shown potential for bone regeneration. These cells can be isolated from bone marrow, adipose, and muscle tissue, among others, and may be induced to differentiate into osteogenic cells to enhance spinal fusion.⁷ The use of MSCs to promote spinal fusion will be summarized here.

How It Works

MSCs can be extracted from adult fat and bone marrow, as well as peripheral blood,⁸,⁹ and can be induced to differentiate into various mesenchymal tissues including bone, cartilage, and muscle.¹⁰,¹¹ In vitro induction can be accomplished by growth factor supplementation and creating culturing conditions that are favorable for the preferred differentiation. Specifically, adipogenic differentiation from MSCs has been successfully accomplished in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium supplemented with isobutylmethylxanthine, indomethacin, and either dexamethasone and insulin or with hydrocortisone.¹¹,¹² Successful induction is then verified by the identification of lipid vacuoles within the cell and various other adipose cell markers. In comparison, in vitro chondrogenic differentiation has been induced by centrifuging the MSCs into micromass pellets and culturing in a medium containing dexamethasone and transforming growth factor β-3.¹³ Chrondrocytes are then detected by the presence of secreted extracellular matrix components such as type II collagen and aggrecan, among others.¹⁴ Osteogenic differentiation may be induced in a culture of dexamethasone, ascorbic acid phosphate, β-glycerol phosphate;¹¹,¹²,¹⁴,¹⁵ successful differentiation is identified by the expression of alkaline phosphate and using cell-specific antibodies. Successful models used to expand the MSC population and induce osteogenic differentiation have also included substances such as transforming growth factor-β and fibroblast growth factor-2.¹⁶,¹⁷ Bone morphogenetic protein has also been shown to successfully expand the osteogenic cell population;⁷,¹⁸ however, limitations exist regarding cost and safety. The authors refer the interested reader to some of the early studies inducing MSC differentiation for additional explanations as to the nature and function of the specific growth factor supplements.¹¹,¹²,¹³,¹⁴,¹⁹,²⁰,²¹ In vivo induction occurs through site-specific differentiation and is often implanted within scaffolds.⁷,¹⁰

In addition to requiring sufficient numbers of MSCs implanted for bone regeneration,²² an osteoconductive matrix is also necessary for osseous growth.¹⁸ The scaffold provides a structural support for cell–cell interactions, extracellular matrix formation, and new tissue formation. The osteoconductive scaffold occupies the site of the fusion, but also provides an environment conducive for the osteoinductive factors and tissue growth. Various biomaterials have been investigated as scaffolds including hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, calcium sulfate, metals, and biodegradable polymers.²³ Serving as the initial structure for tissue growth and blood vessel formation, the biodegradable types of scaffolds eventually resorb as new bone is formed.²⁴

Isolating human MSCs has traditionally been accomplished by using their selective adherence to plastic surfaces, which the hematopoietic cells less commonly do.²⁵ This method, however, typically leads to heterogeneous cell isolation, in which only ~30% of the cells are multipotent MSCs.²⁶ Although the MSCs do not express the cell surface markers normally found on hematopoietic cells, such as CD34 and CD45, there are cell markers that are unique to the MSCs.27 Stro-1 was one of the earlier monoclonal antibodies developed to isolate MSCs,²⁸ and this was followed by additional cell-surface markers such as CD146, CD200, and CD271.²⁹,³⁰,³¹ Use of these markers alone may not be sufficient to isolate pure samples of MSCs. Gronthos and colleagues²⁸ described a method whereby they used Stro-1 monoclonal antibodies and then isolated the cells using immunomagnetic cell sorting (MACS). This resulted in a milieu of cells with varying intensities of STRO-1 fluorescence intensity, which was then further purified for the high-intensity fluorescing cells using fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). Further purification was accomplished using dual-color FACS to isolate those cells with the surface markers VAM-1, which are also expressed on MSCs.³² Another recent study utilized MACS to separate cells that were CD45⁻ (as this marker is not expressed on MSCs) and then subsequently used FACS to isolate cells that were CD146⁺.³⁰ The most effect cell identification technique seems to be a combination of FACS and MACS, though the cell surface markers of choice vary between laboratories. In an effort to identify the most efficient marker of MSCs, Delorme and colleagues³¹ used microarrays and flow cytometry to culture a pure sample of MSCs that expressed 113 transcripts and 17 proteins not found on other hematopoietic cells. They found that CD146 and CD200 were among the most efficient markers to purify MSCs.

Following isolation, MSCs can be cultured in either fetal calf serum or human serum, which show no difference in their effects on the cells to proliferate and differentiate.³³ For bone formation, MSCs are then directed to differentiate into osteoblast lineage cells via the aforementioned factors (e.g., transforming growth factor-β) or via selective genetic expression (e.g., OSX, ZIP1).³⁴,³⁵ Allogeneic transplantation of MSCs can be done in the site of fusion, due to their hypoimmunogenic and even immunosuppressive nature. Flow cytometry experiments have shown that MSCs express intermediate levels of HLA class I and little to no HLA class II or costimulatory molecules (e.g., CD40).¹¹,³⁶ Neither undifferentiated nor differentiated major histocompatibility complexes elicit lymphocyte proliferation when transplanted,³⁶,³⁷ and in fact, they tend to alter the cytokine profile to an anti-inflammatory state by decreasing tumor necrosis factor-α and interferon-gamma and increasing interleukin-10, interleukin-4, and regulatory T cells.³⁸ MSCs have even been used for their immunosuppressive actions in treating acute graft-versus-host disease.³⁹ For these reasons, host-versus-graft disease, or graft rejection, does not appear to be a problem with MSC use in spine fusion.

The use of MSC therapy in bone regeneration has been and is currently investigated both in animal models and in the clinical setting. This is being done through both local implantation of the stem cells and via gene therapy, as well as through autologous transfer of engineered extracted MSCs.

Animal Models

Following the original discoveries of MSCs by Friedenstein et al⁴⁰,⁴¹ and then of Owen in 1988 that MSCs could differentiate into bone,⁴²,⁴³ several groups demonstrated successful autologous transfer of MSCs in healing long bone lesions in various animal models.⁴⁴,⁴⁵,⁴⁶ For example, Arinzeh and colleagues used allogeneic MSCs loaded in a ceramic hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate scaffold to treat large femur defects in adult dogs. They showed that not only did a callus of lamellar bone fill the lesion within 8 weeks, with complete new bone form by 16 weeks, histologically, there was no immune response detected.⁴⁶

In a rat posterior spinal fusion model, Cui and colleagues showed that cloned osteoprogenitor cells implanted in the fusion bed led to successful spine fusion in all animals, compared with only 50% fusion success in animals that were implanted with mixed marrow stromal cells.⁴⁷ Similarly, Muschler et al, in a canine model of dorsal spinal fusion, demonstrated the superiority of the marrow-derived osteoblastic progenitors in promoting spine fusion versus the growth factor and cellular milieu found in a bone marrow clot.⁴⁸ The effectiveness of MSCs in promoting spinal fusion has been shown in progressively larger animals, including rabbit,⁴⁹,⁵⁰,⁵¹,⁵²,⁵³ ovine,⁵⁴,⁵⁵,⁵⁶,⁵⁷ and primate models.⁵⁸,⁵⁹ Specifically, Wang and colleagues⁵⁸ performed anterior lumbar interbody fusions in nine rhesus monkeys, with two fusion sites each, that either utilized autologous bone-marrow derived MSCs on a calcium phosphate scaffold, ICBG, or a control ceramic graft treatment. They found that the MSC group had equivalent biomechanical strength as compared with the ICBG group, and that they were both biomechanically and histologically superior to the control ceramic graft group. Orii et al⁵⁹ performed posterolateral lumbar spine fusions in nine macaque monkeys, which received either marrow-derived MSCs with a β-tricalcium phosphate graft, autogenous bone, or a control tricalcium phosphate graft treatment. Using both X-ray and manual palpation to identify fusion status, they found that the group receiving the MSCs had the highest fusion rate (83.3%) compared with the autogenous bone group (66.7%) and the control group (0% fused). The aforementioned studies used bone marrow-derived MSCs; however, another approach with potentially fewer complications and less morbidity may be the use of adipose-derived MSCs (ASCs).

ASCs were first identified in 2001 by Zuk and colleagues⁶⁰,⁶¹ who showed that ASCs can differentiate into multiple cell types including osteogenic and chondrogenic cells, thereby providing an potential therapeutic avenue for bone regeneration. These cell types were subsequently shown to be capable of adhering to a bioengineered scaffold, as well as remaining viable, proliferating, and differentiating under various conditions.⁶² Rodbell and Jones standardized the first protocol for ASC isolation.⁶³,⁶⁴,⁶⁵ Cowan et al⁶⁶ and later Levi et al⁶⁷ used ASCs to regenerate bone in large mouse calvarial defects. Lopez and colleagues⁶⁸ performed dorsolateral spinal fusions in 56 Fischer rats, with either no graft, only a scaffold, a scaffold with allogeneic ASCs, or a scaffold with syngeneic ASCs. Similar to the studies investigating marrow-derived MSCs, they found that when ASCs were used there were fewer inflammatory infiltrates compared with the control groups, as well as superior bone formation and fusion when using the ASCs. Clinical trials are currently investigating ASCs in treatments ranging from type I diabetes mellitus to liver disease⁶⁹,⁷⁰ and may soon be used for spine fusion treatments as well.

Although there has been much success demonstrated in the animal models, there remain barriers prior to this therapy's translation into the clinical setting. This includes identification of the optimal number and concentration of MSCs, as well as the ideal preparation and implantation techniques needed.⁷¹ Minamide and colleagues⁵⁰ compared the use of differing number of marrow-derived MSCs in a rabbit posterolateral spine fusion model. The low dose contained one million cells per milliliter and resulted in the fusion of zero of seven spines. In contrast, the high dose was one hundred million cells per milliliter and led to the fusion of five of seven rabbit spines. Perhaps an even greater concentration would have led to 100% fusion. Wang et al⁵⁸ compared bone marrow-derived MSCs to autogenous ICBGs in rhesus monkey spine fusion models and found that although the fusions were equivalent in stiffness, the autograft produced greater bone volume. This can be explained by the fact that only three million cells per milliliter were used for the MSC-treated group, in contrast to the 100 million that was used successfully in the study by Minamide et al. Finally, Gan and colleagues,⁷² used bone-marrow-derived MSCs for posterior spine fusion in 41 patients. Using a slightly different quantification method, they recovered and implanted 16.1 million nucleated bone marrow cells per milliliter, of which they measured an average of 213 MSCs per milliliter (MSCs were defined as colony-forming units expressing alkaline phosphatase). Despite the relatively small number of implanted cells, 95% of their patients achieved complete fusion by 34 months’ follow-up. It is clear that we have yet to determine the optimal number of MSCs needed for complete fusion prior to the translation of this technology to the clinical setting. Although some experimental data suggest that increased cell concentrations are required to repair bony defects,⁵⁸,⁷³ others have suggested that the cell concentration is not sufficient but rather the delivery type and biological environment of the graft will significantly affect success of the fusion.⁴⁸ For example, the study by Minamide et al⁵⁰ used a three-dimensional culture, as compared with the more traditional two-dimensional monolayer culture, as they believed that it enhanced proliferation and differentiation. Further studies are warranted to identify the optimal culture and delivery technique.

There are few published clinical studies reporting MSC efficacy in spine surgery. However, there is literature on the osteogenic potential of MSCs in various other skeletal defects as well as ongoing clinical investigations of MSCs in spine surgery with various commercial products such as NeoFuse^® (Mesoblast Ltd., Melbourne, Austrialia) and Osteocel^® (NuVasive, San Diego, CA, USA) among others (see clinicaltrials.gov, including studies No. NCT00996073, NCT01290367, NCT00810212).

Clinical Studies

The earliest clinical studies involving MSCs involved small case studies of autologous MSCs used for bone regeneration. Quarto et al⁷⁴ showed successful and abundant callus formation in three patients with tibial, ulnar, or humeral fractures using autologous MSCs; Lendeckel and colleagues⁷⁵ reported a case study where autologous ASCs were successfully used to treat a large calvarial injury. Subsequent trials, including some larger ones, involved autologous bone marrow successfully used to promote bone fusion in tibial nonunions,⁷⁶,⁷⁷ autologous MSCs for femoral head osteonecrosis,⁷⁸,⁷⁹,⁸⁰,⁸¹ and allogeneic MSCs to treat osteogenesis imperfect,⁸² all of which showed the clinical feasibility of therapeutic application of MSCs to promote bone growth.

The 2011 study by Goldschlager and colleagues,⁵⁵ which demonstrated superior bone formation in ewes with the use of allogeneic ovine MSCs (Mesoblast Limited, Melbourne, Australia) compared with autograft or stand-alone scaffold, was the precursor study to the ongoing clinical trials (NCT01290367, NCT00996073, NCT01097486, NCT00810212, NCT00549913, NCT01106417) using this MSC allograft product in both cervical and lumbar spine fusions. Results on safety and preliminary efficacy in patients will likely be revealed in the coming years.

Current Challenges and Future Directions

Much of the preliminary research done in animal models has shown potential for the use of MSCs, both bone marrow and adipose derived, for bone regeneration. Although there have been limited systematic clinical trials, small case studies have shown that MSC use in humans may have successful bone growth and long-term durability.⁷⁴ Some current limitations include decreased bone growth compared with autograft,⁵⁸ weaker mechanical stability of the implanted graft and poor resorption of the bioceramic constructs,⁷⁴ and ambiguity surrounding the optimal cell concentration and delivery method. More studies examining optimal MSC concentrations are needed in larger animals, which are more comparable to humans, considering the fact that there is decreased potential for bone growth as compared with smaller animals (e.g., rabbits, rats, etc.).⁵⁸,⁸³,⁸⁴ This also demonstrates the need for methods to maximize the number of MSCs collected, as well as techniques that can be feasible in the operating room setting.⁸⁵ Other options can include obtaining somatic cells and converting them into pluripotent cells,⁸⁶ using minimally invasive approaches to collect and culture bone marrow- or adipose-derived MSCs prior to surgery, and potentially even using recombinant forms of MSCs. The present hurdles to clinical use include optimization of osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties of MSCs in bone grafts. Vascularization of the implant and integration of the vasculature with the host will prove to be important; additionally the long-term mechanical strength and durability, particularly at the load-bearing sites such as the lower lumbar spine regions will need to be comparable to native bone.87

Conclusion

Allogeneic MSC therapy for spine fusion and other skeletal treatments is still in its infancy. There has been a surge of interest in the various MSC formulations commercially available for clinical use in spinal surgery. This enthusiasm, and clinical use, must be tempered with the understanding that there are no clinical data that had defined the efficacy or safety profiles in spine surgery patients. Therefore, it is imperative that the spine surgery community carefully evaluate the use of MSC in spine fusion through well-designed and executed studies. Although more than a decade of preclinical animal research that has shown promising results, the safety and efficacy of these products in randomized controlled trials must be ascertained. With the rapidly growing number of spine fusion surgeries performed annually, further study into fusion-enhancing compounds becomes increasingly necessary. MSC therapy remains an interesting and important avenue of research.

Disclosures

Daniel Lubelski, None

Kalil G. Abdullah, None

Edward C. Benzel, None

Thomas E. Mroz, None

References

Lipson

S J

Spinal-fusion surgery—advances and concerns

N Engl J Med 2004 350 643–644

Hsu

W K

Wang

J C

The use of bone morphogenetic protein in spine fusion

Spine J 2008 8 419–425

Mroz

T E

Wang

J C

Hashimoto

Norvell

D C

Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery: a systematic review

Spine 2010 35 9, Suppl S86–S104

Kurz

L T

Garfin

S R

Booth

R E

Harvesting autogenous iliac bone grafts. A review of complications and techniques

Spine 1989 14 1324–1331

Goulet

J A

Senunas

L E

DeSilva

G L

Greenfield

M L

Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment

Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997 339 76–81

Kim

D H

Rhim

, et al.

Prospective study of iliac crest bone graft harvest site pain and morbidity

Spine J 2009 9 886–892

Kimelman

Pelled

Helm

G A

Huard

Schwarz

E M

Gazit

Review: gene- and stem cell-based therapeutics for bone regeneration and repair

Tissue Eng 2007 13 1135–1150

Kern

Eichler

Stoeve

Klüter

Bieback

Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue

Stem Cells 2006 24 1294–1301

Chim

Schantz

J-T

Human circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells for calvarial bone tissue engineering

Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 117 468–478

10.

Liechty

K W

MacKenzie

T C

Shaaban

A F

, et al.

Human mesenchymal stem cells engraft and demonstrate site-specific differentiation after in utero transplantation in sheep

Nat Med 2000 6 1282–1286

11.

Pittenger

M F

Mackay

A M

Beck

S C

, et al.

Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells

Science 1999 284 143–147

12.

Jones

E A

Kinsey

S E

English

, et al.

Isolation and characterization of bone marrow multipotential mesenchymal progenitor cells

Arthritis Rheum 2002 46 3349–3360

13.

Mackay

A M

Beck

S C

Murphy

J M

Barry

F P

Chichester

C O

Pittenger

M F

Chondrogenic differentiation of cultured human mesenchymal stem cells from marrow

Tissue Eng 1998 4 415–428

14.

Jaiswal

Haynesworth

S E

Caplan

A I

Bruder

S P

Osteogenic differentiation of purified, culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells in vitro

J Cell Biochem 1997 64 295–312

15.

Prockop

D J

Marrow stromal cells as stem cells for nonhematopoietic tissues

Science 1997 276 71–74

16.

Fromigué

Modrowski

Marie

P J

Growth factors and bone formation in osteoporosis: roles for fibroblast growth factor and transforming growth factor beta

Curr Pharm Des 2004 10 2593–2603

17.

Charbord

Livne

Gross

, et al.

Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells: a systematic reappraisal via the genostem experience

Stem Cell Rev 2011 7 32–42

18.

Marie

P J

Cell and gene therapy for bone repair

Osteoporos Int 2011 22 2023–2026

19.

Beresford

J N

Osteogenic stem cells and the stromal system of bone and marrow

Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989 240 270–280

20.

Beresford

J N

Bennett

J H

Devlin

Leboy

P S

Owen

M E

Evidence for an inverse relationship between the differentiation of adipocytic and osteogenic cells in rat marrow stromal cell cultures

J Cell Sci 1992 102 Pt 2 341–351

21.

Wakitani

Saito

Caplan

A I

Myogenic cells derived from rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells exposed to 5-azacytidine

Muscle Nerve 1995 18 1417–1426

22.

Hernigou

Beaujean

Treatment of osteonecrosis with autologous bone marrow grafting

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002 405 14–23

23.

Khan

W S

Rayan

Dhinsa

B S

Marsh

An osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic tissue-engineered product for trauma and orthopaedic surgery: how far are we

Stem Cells Int 2012; doi: 10.1155/2012/236231

24.

Porter

B D

Oldham

J B

S L

, et al.

Mechanical properties of a biodegradable bone regeneration scaffold

J Biomech Eng 2000 122 286–288

25.

Rickard

D J

Kassem

Hefferan

T E

Sarkar

Spelsberg

T C

Riggs

B L

Isolation and characterization of osteoblast precursor cells from human bone marrow

J Bone Miner Res 1996 11 312–324

26.

Kuznetsov

S A

Krebsbach

P H

Satomura

, et al.

Single-colony derived strains of human marrow stromal fibroblasts form bone after transplantation in vivo

J Bone Miner Res 1997 12 1335–1347

27.

Abdallah

B M

Saeed

Kassem

Human mesenchymal stem cells: basic biology and clinical applications for bone tissue regeneration

In: Baharvand

ed.

Trends in Stem Cell Biology and Technology

Totowa, NJ

Humana Press

2009 177–190

28.

Gronthos

Graves

S E

Ohta

Simmons

P J

The STRO-1+ fraction of adult human bone marrow contains the osteogenic precursors

Blood 1994 84 4164–4173

29.

Stenderup

Justesen

Eriksen

E F

Rattan

S I

Kassem

Number and proliferative capacity of osteogenic stem cells are maintained during aging and in patients with osteoporosis

J Bone Miner Res 2001 16 1120–1129

30.

Sacchetti

Funari

Michienzi

, et al.

Self-renewing osteoprogenitors in bone marrow sinusoids can organize a hematopoietic microenvironment

Cell 2007 131 324–336

31.

Delorme

Ringe

Gallay

, et al.

Specific plasma membrane protein phenotype of culture-amplified and native human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells

Blood 2008 111 2631–2635

32.

Simmons

P J

Gronthos

Zannettino

Ohta

Graves

Isolation, characterization and functional activity of human marrow stromal progenitors in hemopoiesis

Prog Clin Biol Res 1994 389 271–280

33.

Abdallah

B M

Haack-Sørensen

Fink

Kassem

Inhibition of osteoblast differentiation but not adipocyte differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells by sera obtained from aged females

Bone 2006 39 181–188

34.

Tang

Sahu

S N

Khadeer

M A

Bai

Franklin

R B

Gupta

Overexpression of the ZIP1 zinc transporter induces an osteogenic phenotype in mesenchymal stem cells

Bone 2006 38 181–198

35.

Lin

, et al.

Osteogenic differentiation of adipose derived stem cells promoted by overexpression of osterix

Mol Cell Biochem 2007 301 83–92

36.

Le Blanc

Tammik

Rosendahl

Zetterberg

Ringdén

HLA expression and immunologic properties of differentiated and undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells

Exp Hematol 2003 31 890–896

37.

Götherström

Ringdén

Tammik

Zetterberg

Westgren

Le Blanc

Immunologic properties of human fetal mesenchymal stem cells

Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 190 239–245

38.

Aggarwal

Pittenger

M F

Human mesenchymal stem cells modulate allogeneic immune cell responses

Blood 2005 105 1815–1822

39.

Le Blanc

Rasmusson

Sundberg

, et al.

Treatment of severe acute graft-versus-host disease with third party haploidentical mesenchymal stem cells

Lancet 2004 363 1439–1441

40.

Friedenstein

A J

Chailakhjan

R K

Lalykina

K S

The development of fibroblast colonies in monolayer cultures of guinea-pig bone marrow and spleen cells

Cell Tissue Kinet 1970 3 393–403

41.

Friedenstein

A J

Piatetzky-Shapiro

I I

Petrakova

K V

Osteogenesis in transplants of bone marrow cells

J Embryol Exp Morphol 1966 16 381–390

42.

Owen

Marrow stromal stem cells

J Cell Sci Suppl 1988 10 63–76

43.

Owen

Friedenstein

A J

Stromal stem cells: marrow-derived osteogenic precursors

Ciba Found Symp 1988 136 42–60

44.

Shen

F H

Visger

J M

Balian

Hurwitz

S R

Diduch

D R

Systemically administered mesenchymal stromal cells transduced with insulin-like growth factor-I localize to a fracture site and potentiate healing

J Orthop Trauma 2002 16 651–659

45.

Shen

F H

Visger

J M

Balian

Hurwitz

S R

Diduch

D R

Systemically administered mesenchymal stromal cells transduced with insulin-like growth factor-I localize to a fracture site and potentiate healing

J Orthop Trauma 2002 16 651–659

46.

Arinzeh

T L

Peter

S J

Archambault

M P

, et al.

Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells regenerate bone in a critical-sized canine segmental defect

J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003 85–A 1927–1935

47.

Cui

Ming Xiao

Balian

Wang

G J

Comparison of lumbar spine fusion using mixed and cloned marrow cells

Spine 2001 26 2305–2310

48.

Muschler

G F

Nitto

Matsukura

, et al.

Spine fusion using cell matrix composites enriched in bone marrow-derived cells

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003 407 102–118

49.

Kai

Shao-qing

Geng-ting

In vivo evaluation of bone marrow stromal-derived osteoblasts-porous calcium phosphate ceramic composites as bone graft substitute for lumbar intervertebral spinal fusion

Spine 2003 28 1653–1658

50.

Minamide

Yoshida

Kawakami

, et al.

The use of cultured bone marrow cells in type I collagen gel and porous hydroxyapatite for posterolateral lumbar spine fusion

Spine 2005 30 1134–1138

51.

Nakajima

Iizuka

Tsutsumi

Kayakabe

Takagishi

Evaluation of posterolateral spinal fusion using mesenchymal stem cells: differences with or without osteogenic differentiation

Spine 2007 32 2432–2436

52.

Cinotti

Patti

A M

Vulcano

, et al.

Experimental posterolateral spinal fusion with porous ceramics and mesenchymal stem cells

J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004 86 135–142

53.

Hui

CFF

Chan

C W

Yeung

H Y

, et al.

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound enhances posterior spinal fusion implanted with mesenchymal stem cells-calcium phosphate composite without bone grafting

Spine 2011 36 1010–1016

54.

Gupta

M C

Theerajunyaporn

Maitra

, et al.

Efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell enriched grafts in an ovine posterolateral lumbar spine model

Spine 2007 32 720–726; discussion 727

55.

Goldschlager

Rosenfeld

J V

Ghosh

, et al.

Cervical interbody fusion is enhanced by allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells in an ovine model

Spine 2011 36 615–623

56.

Goldschlager

Ghosh

Zannettino

, et al.

A comparison of mesenchymal precursor cells and amnion epithelial cells for enhancing cervical interbody fusion in an ovine model

Neurosurgery 2011 68 1025–1034; discussion 1034–1035

57.

Tan

K K

Tan

G H

Shamsul

B S

, et al.

Bone graft substitute using hydroxyapatite scaffold seeded with tissue engineered autologous osteoprogenitor cells in spinal fusion: early result in a sheep model

Med J Malaysia 2005 60 Suppl C 53–58

58.

Wang

Dang

Guo

Yang

Evaluation of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-calcium phosphate ceramic composite for lumbar fusion in rhesus monkey interbody fusion model

Tissue Eng 2005 11 1159–1167

59.

Orii

Sotome

Chen

Wang

Shinomiya

Beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) graft combined with bone marrow stromal cells (MSCs) for posterolateral spine fusion

J Med Dent Sci 2005 52 51–57

60.

Zuk

P A

Zhu

Mizuno

, et al.

Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell-based therapies

Tissue Eng 2001 7 211–228

61.

Zuk

P A

Zhu

Ashjian

, et al.

Human adipose tissue is a source of multipotent stem cells

Mol Biol Cell 2002 13 4279–4295

62.

Shen

F H

Zeng

, et al.

Osteogenic differentiation of adipose-derived stromal cells treated with GDF-5 cultured on a novel three-dimensional sintered microsphere matrix

Spine J 2006 6 615–623

63.

Rodbell

Jones

A B

Metabolism of isolated fat cells. 3. The similar inhibitory action of phospholipase C (Clostridium perfringens alpha toxin) and of insulin on lipolysis stimulated by lipolytic hormones and theophylline

J Biol Chem 1966 241 1 140–142

64.

Gimble

J M

Katz

A J

Bunnell

B A

Adipose-derived stem cells for regenerative medicine

Circ Res 2007 100 1249–1260

65.

Monaco

Bionaz

Hollister

S J

Wheeler

M B

Strategies for regeneration of the bone using porcine adult adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells

Theriogenology 2011 75 1381–1399

66.

Cowan

C M

Shi

Y-Y

Aalami

O O

, et al.

Adipose-derived adult stromal cells heal critical-size mouse calvarial defects

Nat Biotechnol 2004 22 560–567

67.

Levi

James

A W

Nelson

E R

, et al.

Human adipose derived stromal cells heal critical size mouse calvarial defects

PLoS ONE 2010 5 e11177

68.

Lopez

M J

McIntosh

K R

Spencer

N D

, et al.

Acceleration of spinal fusion using syngeneic and allogeneic adult adipose derived stem cells in a rat model

J Orthop Res 2009 27 366–373

69.

Witkowska-Zimny

Walenko

Stem cells from adipose tissue

Cell Mol Biol Lett 2011 16 236–257

70.

Utsunomiya

Shimada

Imura

, et al.

Human adipose-derived stem cells: potential clinical applications in surgery

Surg Today 2011 41 18–23

71.

Lee

Y-P

Ghofrani

Bone graft substitutes and extenders

Contemporary Spine Surgery 2009 10 4 1–8

72.

Gan

Dai

Zhang

Tang

Zhu

The clinical use of enriched bone marrow stem cells combined with porous beta-tricalcium phosphate in posterior spinal fusion

Biomaterials 2008 29 3973–3982

73.

Goshima

Goldberg

V M

Caplan

A I

The osteogenic potential of culture-expanded rat marrow mesenchymal cells assayed in vivo in calcium phosphate ceramic blocks

Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991 262 298–311

74.

Quarto

Mastrogiacomo

Cancedda

, et al.

Repair of large bone defects with the use of autologous bone marrow stromal cells

N Engl J Med 2001 344 385–386

75.

Lendeckel

Jödicke

Christophis

, et al.

Autologous stem cells (adipose) and fibrin glue used to treat widespread traumatic calvarial defects: case report

J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2004 32 370–373

76.

Goel

Sangwan

S S

Siwach

R C

Ali

A M

Percutaneous bone marrow grafting for the treatment of tibial non-union

Injury 2005 36 203–206

77.

Hernigou

Poignard

Beaujean

Rouard

Percutaneous autologous bone-marrow grafting for nonunions. Influence of the number and concentration of progenitor cells

J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005 87 1430–1437

78.

Kawate

Yajima

Ohgushi

, et al.

Tissue-engineered approach for the treatment of steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head: transplantation of autologous mesenchymal stem cells cultured with beta-tricalcium phosphate ceramics and free vascularized fibula

Artif Organs 2006 30 960–962

79.

Gangji

De Maertelaer

Hauzeur

J-P

Autologous bone marrow cell implantation in the treatment of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: five year follow-up of a prospective controlled study

Bone 2011 49 1005–1009

80.

Gangji

Hauzeur

J-P

Treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head with implantation of autologous bone-marrow cells. Surgical technique

J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005 87 Pt 1, Suppl 1 106–112

81.

Zhao

Cui

Wang

, et al.

Treatment of early stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head with autologous implantation of bone marrow-derived and cultured mesenchymal stem cells

Bone 2011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22094904. Accessed November 26, 2011

82.

Horwitz

E M

Prockop

D J

Fitzpatrick

L A

, et al.

Transplantability and therapeutic effects of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal cells in children with osteogenesis imperfecta

Nat Med 1999 5 309–313

83.

Aspenberg

Lohmander

L S

Thorngren

K G

Failure of bone induction by bone matrix in adult monkeys

J Bone Joint Surg Br 1988 70 625–627

84.

Aspenberg

Wang

Thorngren

K G

Bone morphogenetic protein induces bone in the squirrel monkey, but bone matrix does not

Acta Orthop Scand 1992 63 619–622

85.

Gottfried

O N

Dailey

A T

Mesenchymal stem cell and gene therapies for spinal fusion

Neurosurgery 2008 63 380–391; discussion 391–392

86.

Park

I-H

Zhao

West

J A

, et al.

Reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotency with defined factors

Nature 2008 451 141–146

87.

Bhumiratana

Vunjak-Novakovic

Engineering functional bone grafts

In: Bernstein

H S

ed.

Tissue Engineering in Regenerative Medicine

Totowa, NJ

Humana Press

2011 221–235

The Utility of Allograft Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Spine Fusion: A Literature Review

Abstract

Keywords

How It Works

Animal Models

Clinical Studies

Current Challenges and Future Directions

Conclusion

Disclosures Daniel Lubelski, None Kalil G. Abdullah, None Edward C. Benzel, None Thomas E. Mroz, None

Disclosures

References

Disclosures

Daniel Lubelski, None

Kalil G. Abdullah, None

Edward C. Benzel, None

Thomas E. Mroz, None