Osteocel is a bone matrix, (a point of origin), that preserves stem cells found in bone marrow. These cells are harvested from a donor (within the first 72 hours), processed by demineralization and usually combined with a milled femoral head (remember the good old days when surgeons did that in the OR). The controversy surrounding both Trinity and Osteocel, is how many viable stem cells are delivered in each dose? Meaning how many have survived the harvesting process and the cleansing which in itself is an incredible purification process?
Trinity is marketed as an allograft product that has been processed (demineralized), from a deceased donor, resulting in a source of cells. It all starts to sound similar. Allogenic stem cells carry with them all the safety issues of any allograft product. The donors have to be adequately screened, cells must be tested for the presence of any virus or bacteria while the principal safety concern is the risk of tissue mismatch or infection in the recipient. Just like Osteocel, the controversy surrounding Trinity also centers around how many stem cells are viable or alive when delivered in each dose at the point of delivery. If Orthofix/Blackstone claims > 50,000 MSC/cc would that mean that there are 250,000 MSC in a 5cc dose? Are they all alive?????
Are physicians questioning any of these claims?
Marketing is a wonderful art. Unfortunately, when it comes down to these two products it's all show, all dough, and all anyone can say is STEM CELLS. Whenever I hear Osteocel Plus, I always wonder if that is the equivalent of pulling up to the Sunoco station and asking for the Ultra. Are you willing to pay more to get the same performance. The Spine Blogger wants to know what our readers think about these products!