search
Back to results

Comparing Synthetic Bone Alone Versus Synthetic Bone With Bone Marrow in Bone Lesions

Primary Purpose

Bone Diseases

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Vitoss Alone
Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate
Sponsored by
State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Bone Diseases focused on measuring Bone formation, Bone lesions, Benign bone lesion

Eligibility Criteria

undefined - undefined (Child, Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria: Patients with a benign bone lesion requiring surgical curettage Exclusion Criteria: Patients with infection, bone marrow disorders, or other contraindications to use of supplemental bone marrow aspiration as well as those who prefer autologous or allogeneic graft material alone (without synthetic filler) would be excluded.

Sites / Locations

  • SUNY Upstate Medical University

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate

Vitoss Alone

Arm Description

Addition of Vitoss to the bone marrow aspirate

vitoss alone

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 24 Months
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation, at 24 months .Participants were seen 24 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Full Information

First Posted
September 1, 2005
Last Updated
June 4, 2015
Sponsor
State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
Collaborators
Orthovita d/b/a Stryker
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00147823
Brief Title
Comparing Synthetic Bone Alone Versus Synthetic Bone With Bone Marrow in Bone Lesions
Official Title
A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Vitoss Alone Versus Vitoss With Bone Marrow Aspirate in Benign Bone Lesions
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
December 2013
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
December 2004 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
December 2011 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
December 2011 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
Collaborators
Orthovita d/b/a Stryker

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This is a prospective randomized study comparing Vitoss alone versus Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate in benign bone lesions.
Detailed Description
Bone graft obtained from a patient's own bone (autogenous), usually around the pelvis, is currently considered the gold standard for bone grafting material. It provides a structural scaffold on which the patient's own bone may grow into (osteoconduction), growth factors that can stimulate healing (osteoinduction), and primitive cells (progenitors) that can stimulate bone formation directly (osteogenesis). It readily regains a blood supply from the surrounding tissues (revascularization) and is incorporated into the recipient site. However, there are significant disadvantages in the use of the patient's own bone graft including complications where the bone is taken from (donor site morbidity), limited availability and expense. For defects created by scraping (curettage) of non-cancerous (benign) bone lesions, a structural scaffold (osteoconduction) is generally considered the minimal necessary role that the graft material must serve to allow healing of the defect. Hence, human donor bone procured at the time of death (allografts) and synthetic bone fillers have been used as an alternative to the patient's own bone (autogenous bone graft). The question that remains is whether additional growth factors that can stimulate bone formation (osteoinductive property) and/or cells that form bone directly (osteogenic property) facilitate healing of these defects when added to a material other than the patient's own bone graft source. In our experience with the use of the synthetic bone graft substitute ultraporous beta-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) (Vitoss, Orthovita, Inc.) over the last 3 years, the graft material, when combined with local blood alone, has performed well clinically but has persisted for a year or longer radiographically in some cases. Prolonged persistence of the graft material may serve as a potential stress riser, although we did not observe any untoward late effects in our published work. Several authors have studied the effects of composite grafts formed from a combination of bone graft substitutes and the patient's own bone marrow in animal models with promising results. There are no studies in the current literature evaluating the effects of healing in composite ultraporous beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) in defects after scraping of benign tumors (cavitary defects) in humans. The purpose of this study is to prospectively examine healing of cavitary defects treated with TCP alone versus those treated with TCP combined with BMA. Our hypothesis is that both graft resorption and trabeculation (radiographic measures of incorporation of the synthetic material by the native bone) will be more advanced at each time point in those patients that receive BMA plus TCP compared to those that receive TCP alone. Patients with any type of benign bone lesion indicated for surgical curettage would be offered inclusion in the study and followed for a minimum of 2 years post-operatively. Bone marrow aspiration would be obtained by a needle inserted through the skin (percutaneous aspiration) from the large bone of the pelvis (iliac crest) using a standard bone marrow aspiration needle. Patients with infection, bone marrow disorders, or other conditions that preclude use of supplementary the patient's bone marrow as well as those who prefer to use their own bone graft material (autograft) or donated human bone graft (allograft) alone would be excluded. Each patient will undergo radiographic evaluation of the lesion at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 18 months and 2 years post operatively. At one time point (1 year) a computerized tomogram (CT) of the grafted region will be obtained for each patient. Two qualified, blinded, independent reviewers will evaluate the radiographs and CT scans for six criteria: presence of graft within the soft tissues, presence of a rim of radiolucency surrounding the grafted defect, size/circumference of the rim of radiolucency, resorption of graft material, trabeculation through the defect and persistence of graft material in the lesion. Kappa statistics have shown good agreement for these parameters in our retrospective preliminary analysis of results for the TCP use without bone marrow over the first 2 years of its use by the PI.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Bone Diseases
Keywords
Bone formation, Bone lesions, Benign bone lesion

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
63 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Addition of Vitoss to the bone marrow aspirate
Arm Title
Vitoss Alone
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
vitoss alone
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Vitoss Alone
Intervention Description
Synthetic bone graft material
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate
Intervention Description
Vitoss mixed with Bone Marrow aspirate
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 24 Months
Description
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation, at 24 months .Participants were seen 24 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Time Frame
24 months
Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures:
Title
Bone Trabeculation Through the Defect (BT) Compared at 24 Months
Description
Bone trabeculation through the bone lesion at 24 months as determined with radiographs. There were several participants with incomplete follow up or incomplete radiographs. .
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 18 Months
Description
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation at 18 months. Participants were seen 18 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Time Frame
18 months
Title
Bone Trabeculation Through the Defect (BT) Compared at 18 Months
Description
Bone trabeculation through the bone lesion at 18 months with reviewed with radiographs. There were several participants with incomplete follow up or incomplete radiographs.
Time Frame
18 months
Title
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 12 Months
Description
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation at 12months. Participants were seen 12 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Bone Trabeculation Through the Defect (BT) Compared at 12 Months
Description
Bone trabeculation through the bone lesion at 12 months was reviewed with radiographs. There were several participants with incomplete follow up or incomplete radiographs.
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 6 Months
Description
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation at 6 months. Participants were seen 6 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Bone Trabeculation Through the Defect (BT) Compared at 6 Months
Description
Bone trabeculation through the bone lesion at 6 months was reviewed with radiographs. There were several participants with incomplete follow up or incomplete radiographs.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 3 Months
Description
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation at 3 months. Participants were seen 3 month follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Time Frame
3 months
Title
Bone Trabeculation Through the Defect (BT) Compared at 3 Months
Description
Bone trabeculation through the bone lesion compared at 3 months were reviewed with radiographs. There were several participants with incomplete follow up or incomplete radiographs.
Time Frame
3 months
Title
Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 6 Weeks
Description
Percentage of graft material that is resorbed (disappears) from area of incorporation at 6 weeks. Participants were seen 6 week follow with radiographs to review resorption of graft material. There a several that had incomplete follow up or radiographs not taken.
Time Frame
6 weeks
Title
Bone Trabeculation Through the Defect (BT) Compared at 6 Weeks
Description
Bone trabeculation through the bone lesion compared at 6 weeks were reviewed with radiographs. There were several participants with incomplete follow up or incomplete radiographs.
Time Frame
6 weeks

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Patients with a benign bone lesion requiring surgical curettage Exclusion Criteria: Patients with infection, bone marrow disorders, or other contraindications to use of supplemental bone marrow aspiration as well as those who prefer autologous or allogeneic graft material alone (without synthetic filler) would be excluded.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Timothy A. Damron, M.D.
Organizational Affiliation
State University of New York - Upstate Medical University
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
SUNY Upstate Medical University
City
Syracuse
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
13210
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Links:
URL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15864061
Description
Paper written in 2002 when study first began

Learn more about this trial

Comparing Synthetic Bone Alone Versus Synthetic Bone With Bone Marrow in Bone Lesions

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs