Autologous bone marrow concentrate intradiscal injection for the treatment of degenerative disc disease with three-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess safety and feasibility of intradiscal bone marrow concentrate (BMC) injections to treat low back discogenic pain as an alternative to surgery with three year minimum follow-up. METHODS: A total of 26 patients suffering from degenerative disc disease and candidates for spinal fusion or total disc replacement surgery were injected with 2 ml autologous BMC into the nucleus pulposus of treated lumbar discs. A sample aliquot of BMC was characterized by flow cytometry and CFU-F assay to determine progenitor cell content. Improvement in pain and disability scores and 12 month post-injection MRI were compared to patient demographics and BMC cellularity. RESULTS: After 36 months, only six patients progressed to surgery. The remaining 20 patients reported average ODI and VAS improvements from 56.7 ± 3.6 and 82.1 ± 2.6 at baseline to 17.5 ± 3.2 and 21.9 ± 4.4 after 36 months, respectively. One year MRI indicated 40% of patients improved one modified Pfirrmann grade and no patient worsened radiographically. Cellular analysis showed an average of 121 million total nucleated cells per ml, average CFU-F of 2713 per ml, and average CD34+ of 1.82 million per ml in the BMC. Patients with greater concentrations of CFU-F (>2000 per ml) and CD34+ cells (>2 million per ml) in BMC tended to have significantly better clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There were no adverse events related to marrow aspiration or injection, and this study provides evidence of safety and feasibility of intradiscal BMC therapy. Patient improvement and satisfaction with this surgical alternative supports further study of the therapy.

Why Lumbar Artificial Disk Replacements (LADRs) Fail.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine why artificial disk replacements (ADRs) fail by examining results of 91 patients in FDA studies performed at a single investigational device exemption (IDE) site with minimum 2-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients following lumbar ADR generally achieve their 24-month follow-up results at 3 months postoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Every patient undergoing ADR at 1 IDE site by 2 surgeons was evaluated for clinical success. Failure was defined as <50% improvement in ODI and VAS or any additional surgery at index or adjacent spine motion segment. Three ADRs were evaluated: Maverick, 25 patients; Charité, 31 patients; and Kineflex, 35 patients. All procedures were 1-level operations performed at L4-L5 or L5-S1. Demographics and inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar and will be discussed. RESULTS: Overall clinical failure occurred in 26% (24 of 91 patients) at 2-year follow-up. Clinical failure occurred in: 28% (Maverick) (7 of 25 patients), 39% (Charité) (12 of 31 patients), and 14% (Kineflex) (5 of 35 patients). Causes of failure included facet pathology, 50% of failure patients (12 of 24). Implant complications occurred in 5% of total patients and 21% of failure patients (5 of 24). Only 5 patients went from a success to failure after 3 months. Only 1 patient went from a failure to success after a facet rhizotomy 1 year after ADR. CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-four percent of patients after ADR met strict clinical success after 2-year follow-up. The clinical success versus failure rate did not change from their 3-month follow-up in 85 of the 91 patients (93%). Overall clinical success may be improved most by patient selection and implant type.

Five-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Two Lumbar Total Disc Replacements.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of two lumbar total disc replacements (TDRs) at 5-year follow-up and report results of serum ion level analysis in a subgroup of patients receiving a metal-on-metal implant. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar TDR has been compared with fusion in several randomized studies, finding TDR noninferior to fusion and superior on some measures. Receiving less attention has been comparing TDR devices. Additionally, there is concern about metal-on-metal implants, with little data available for spine devices. METHODS: The study included 204 patients receiving Kineflex-L (investigational) and 190 receiving CHARITÉ (control). Outcome measure included Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog pain scales (VAS), patient satisfaction, neurological status, complications, reoperations, and a composite success score. Radiographic assessment included range of motion, subsidence, and heterotrophic ossification. In 32 investigational patients, serum ion analysis was performed for cobalt and chromium. These values were compared with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency values to merit monitoring total hip replacement patients for potential wear problems. RESULTS: Mean Oswestry and VAS scores in both groups improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained improved during 5-year follow-up (Oswestry Disability Index, scores in both groups were approximately 60 preoperatively vs. 20 at 2- and 5-year follow-up; P < 0.01; VAS scores improved >50% by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved; P < 0.05). Approximately 11% of both groups underwent reoperation. Radiographic analysis found segmental range of motion decreased at 3 month, then increased through 24 months, and was maintained thereafter. Serum ion level analysis found the greatest mean value at any follow-up point was less than 20% of Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency recommended minimum value to merit monitoring hip replacement patients. CONCLUSION: This prospective, randomized study comparing two TDRs found no significant differences in outcomes during 5-year follow-up. Both provided statistically significant improvements by 6 weeks that were maintained. This results support other studies. Serum ion levels in TDR patients were well below the recommended threshold levels to merit monitoring.

Treatment of discogenic back pain with autologous bone marrow concentrate injection with minimum two year follow-up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess safety and feasibility of intradiscal bone marrow concentrate (BMC) injections to treat discogenic pain as an alternative to surgery. METHODS: A total of 26 patients (11 male, 15 female, aged 18-61 years, 13 single level, 13 two level) that met inclusion criteria of chronic (> 6 months) discogenic low back pain, degenerative disc pathology assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with modified Pfirrmann grade of IV-VII at one or two levels, candidate for surgical intervention (failed conservative treatment and radiologic findings) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score of 40 mm or more at initial visit. Initial Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and VAS pain score average was 56.5 % and 80.1 mm (0-100), respectively. Adverse event reporting, ODI score, VAS pain score, MRI radiographic changes, progression to surgery and cellular analysis of BMC were noted. Retrospective cell analysis by flow cytometry and colony forming unit-fibroblast (CFU-F) assays were performed to characterise each patient's BMC and compare with clinical outcomes. The BMC was injected into the nucleus pulposus of the symptomatic disc(s) under fluoroscopic guidance. Patients were evaluated clinically prior to treatment and at three, six, 12 and 24 months and radiographically prior to treatment and at 12 months. RESULTS: There were no complications from the percutaneous bone marrow aspiration or disc injection. Of 26 patients, 24 (92 %) avoided surgery through 12 months, while 21 (81 %) avoided surgery through two years. Of the 21 surviving patients, the average ODI and VAS scores were reduced to 19.9 and 27.0 at three months and sustained to 18.3 and 22.9 at 24 months, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Twenty patients had follow-up MRI at 12 months, of whom eight had improved by at least one Pfirrmann grade, while none of the discs worsened. Total and rate of pain reduction were linked to mesenchymal stem cell concentration through 12 months. Only five of the 26 patients elected to undergo surgical intervention (fusion or artificial disc replacement) by the two year milestone. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of safety and feasibility in the non-surgical treatment of discogenic pain with autologous BMC, with durable pain relief (71 % VAS reduction) and ODI improvements (> 64 %) through two years.

Percutaneous injection of autologous bone marrow concentrate cells significantly reduces lumbar discogenic pain through 12 months.

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) induces chronic back pain with limited nonsurgical options. In this open label pilot study, 26 patients (median age 40 years; range 18-61) received autologous bone marrow concentrate (BMC) disc injections (13 one level, 13 two levels). Pretreatment Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) were performed to establish baseline pain scores (average 56.5 and 79.3, respectively), while magnetic resonance imaging was independently scored according to the modified Pfirrmann scale. Approximately 1 ml of BMC was analyzed for total nucleated cell (TNC) content, colony-forming unit-fibroblast (CFU-F) frequency, differentiation potential, and phenotype characterization. The average ODI and VAS scores were reduced to 22.8 and 29.2 at 3 months, 24.4 and 26.3 at 6 months, and 25.0 and 33.2 at 12 months, respectively (p ≤ .0001). Eight of twenty patients improved by one modified Pfirrmann grade at 1 year. The average BMC contained 121 × 10(6) TNC/ml with 2,713 CFU-F/ml (synonymous with mesenchymal stem cells). Although all subjects presented a substantial reduction in pain, patients receiving greater than 2,000 CFU-F/ml experienced a significantly faster and greater reduction in ODI and VAS. Subjects older than 40 years who received fewer than 2,000 CFU-F/ml experienced an average pain reduction of 33.7% (ODI) and 29.1% (VAS) at 12 months, while all other patients' average reduction was 69.5% (ODI, p = .03) and 70.6% (VAS, p = .01). This study provides evidence of safety and feasibility in the nonsurgical treatment of DDD with autologous BMC and indicates an effect of mesenchymal cell concentration on discogenic pain reduction.

Comparison of 2 lumbar total disc replacements: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter Food and Drug Administration trial with 24-month follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter study with 24-month follow-up. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy in a Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption of a new lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) by comparing it to an earlier TDR approved for sale. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials have reported TDR to produce results similar or superior to lumbar fusion. Results for various TDRs seem to be similar, but differences in study design and outcome measures pose challenges in definitively comparing devices. The purpose of this study was to perform a direct comparison of 2 lumbar TDRs in a prospective, randomized trial. METHODS: TDR was performed in 457 patients from 21 sites (261 patients in the investigational group (Kineflex-L Disc; metal-on-metal design anchored with keels, 204 randomized and 57 nonrandomized training cases), and 196 in the control group (CHARITE artificial disc; metal with polyethylene core with teeth for anchoring; 190 randomized and 6 nonrandomized training cases). All patients were treated nonoperatively for single-level symptomatic disc degeneration for at least 6 months prior to surgery. Perioperative data were collected. Clinical outcome data were collected prospectively, as approved by the Food and Drug Administration, through 24-month follow-up. Primary outcome measures used were the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scales assessing pain, patient satisfaction, and reoperations. Success was defined to be at least 15-point improvements in Oswestry Disability Index scores, no reoperation, and no major adverse events. Radiographical measures included range of motion, disc space height, and assessment for device migration, subsidence, and fusion at the TDR level. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups when comparing operative time, blood loss, or length of hospital stay. Both groups improved significantly on Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale scores (P < 0.01) with no differences between the groups. Success rates were similar (68.1% investigational vs. 67.4% control). At 24-month follow-up, 94.1% of the investigational group and 91.9% of controls were satisfied with outcome. Reoperation was performed in 10.3% of the investigational group and 8.4% of the control group. CONCLUSION: This prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing 2 TDRs, the first to the authors' knowledge, found the devices produced very similar clinical outcomes. Both groups improved significantly by 6 weeks postoperatively and remained improved throughout follow-up with a high patient satisfaction rate.

Prospective study of disc repair with allogeneic chondrocytes presented at the 2012 Joint Spine Section Meeting.

OBJECT: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety and initial efficacy of NuQu allogeneic juvenile chondrocytes delivered percutaneously for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis with mechanical low-back pain (LBP). NuQu is a cell-based biological therapy for disc repair. The authors report the results at 12 months of the NuQu Phase I investigational new drug (IND) single-arm, prospective feasibility study for the treatment of LBP for single-level degenerative disc disease (Pfirrman Grades III-IV) at L3-S1. METHODS: Fifteen patients (6 women and 9 men) were enrolled at 2 sites. Institutional review board approval was obtained, and all patients signed a study-specific informed consent. All patients have completed a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Patients were evaluated pretreatment and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Evaluations included routine neurological examinations, serum liver and renal function studies, MRI, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: Fifteen patients were treated with a single percutaneous delivery of NuQu juvenile chondrocytes. The mean patient age was 40 years (19-47 years). Each treatment consisted of 1-2 ml (mean injection 1.3 ml) of juvenile chondrocytes (approximately 10(7) chondrocyte cells/ml) with fibrin carrier. The mean peak pressure during treatment was 87.6 psi. The treatment time ranged from 5 to 33 seconds. The mean ODI (baseline 53.3, 12-month 20.3; p < 0.0001), NRS (baseline 5.7, 12-month 3.1; p = 0.0025), and SF-36 physical component summary (baseline 35.3, 12-month 46.9; p = 0.0002) scores all improved significantly from baseline. At the 6-month follow-up, 13 patients underwent MRI (one patient underwent CT imaging and another refused imaging). Ten (77%) of these 13 patients exhibited improvements on MRI. Three of these patients showed improvement in disc contour or height. High-intensity zones (HIZs), consistent with posterior anular tears, were present at baseline in 9 patients. Of these, the HIZ was either absent or improved in 8 patients (89%) by 6 months. The HIZ was improved in the ninth patient at 3 months, with no further MRI follow-up. Of the 10 patients who exhibited radiological improvement at 6 months, findings continued to improve or were sustained in 8 patients at the 12-month follow-up. No patient experienced neurological deterioration. There were no disc infections, and there were no serious or unexpected adverse events. Three patients (20%) underwent total disc replacement by the 12-month follow-up due to persistent, but not worse than baseline, LBP. CONCLUSIONS: This is a 12-month report of the clinical and radiographic results from a US IND study of cell-based therapy (juvenile chondrocytes) in the treatment of lumbar spondylosis with mechanical LBP. The results of this prospective cohort are promising and warrant further investigation with a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study design. Clinical trial registration no.: BB-IND 13985.

Kineflex lumbar artificial disc versus Charité lumbar total disc replacement for the treatment of degenerative disc disease: A randomized non-inferiority trial with minimum of 2 years' follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The Kineflex lumbar artificial disc replacement device (SpinalMotion, Mountain View, California) is a semiconstrained, posterior center of rotation, metal-on-metal intervertebral disc prosthesis. We performed a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing the Kineflex Disc with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Charité device (DePuy Spine, Raynham, Massachusetts). Our objective was to evaluate the Kineflex Disc's safety and efficacy using validated outcomes measures-the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive either the Kineflex Disc or Charité device and were then followed up for up to 3 years. Patients completed VAS and ODI questionnaires and were evaluated clinically and radiologically for complication or device failure. Results were analyzed in terms of change in mean VAS score and ODI from baseline, as well as with a comparison of clinical success as defined by FDA investigational device exemption criteria. Non-inferiority was defined as a difference of less than 18 points in the VAS score and difference of less than 10 units on the ODI scale, in keeping with a previously established minimum clinically important difference. RESULTS: The mean improvement for the Kineflex Disc group at 24 months was 56.80 for the VAS score and 37.30 for the ODI. Similarly, the mean improvement in the Charité group was 54.43 for the VAS score and 38.40 for the ODI. At 2 years of follow-up, no difference was found in VAS scores between the two groups. The Kineflex Disc group was therefore found to be non-inferior (mean difference, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, -12.5 to 17.3; P = .004). In addition, at 24 months, 83% of patients in the Kineflex Disc group and 85% of patients in the Charité group met FDA-defined criteria for clinical success, with no difference between groups (P = .802). CONCLUSIONS: This level I evidence shows the Kineflex Disc to be non-inferior to the Charité device in terms of pain reduction (VAS score) and FDA-defined clinical success at 24 months' follow-up. Both devices showed a high degree of safety.