Friday, October 30, 2009

BioMemetics: Is this another Spin on Platelet Rich Plasma

Recent articles in various orthopaedic platforms have resurfaced with products related to a therapy called Platelet Rich Plasma or better known as 'PRP." Most of our readers know that PRP derived from the patient's own blood is safe, yet, TSB must ask the twenty million dollar question; "Is there a place for this type of therapy in spinal surgery?"

Biomemetics is the latest entrant out to prove that there's a better way to heal bone! TSB is not going to dignify their statement that "Augment" is Biomemetic's alternative to autograft. Everyone and their grandmother knows that with the advent of DBM's, TCP's, and BMP's, harvesting bone graft from the iliac crest has become a thing of the past. Yet, Biomemetic's claims that their product holds purified recombinant human platelet-derived bone growth factor BB which encourages new blood vessels and bone cells to grow.

But wasn't therapy like this attempted by various companies in the last 5-6 years. A company by the name of Cascade took a shot at a PRP therapy back in 2003 and Interpore (RIP) attempted to market a product with an acronym called AGF only to back off from marketing this product for spine. TSB wants to know what our readers know and think about this product. Can this really compete in the same space as INFUSE, or, is this just another slick Madison Avenue marketing scheme?


  1. Biomimetics may have some unique specific purified component of PRP, and that may or may not promote bone formation. The effects of most of these factors is concentration dependent, and with recombinant materials you have more control over that aspect. For PRPs themselves it has been shown fairly conclusively that they don't grow bone. After all the hype created by AGF and others, and a few D quality papers, the first randomized prospective study in posterolateral fusions clearly showed that the addition of PRP to autograft in fact impeded (!) bony healing. Two later, independent, studies confirmed this. So, PRP for bone grafting is Madison Avenue, for Biomimetics the jury is still out.

  2. AGF!....ahhhh. That was one of the worst product introductions/lack of introductions ever. I remember the poster/paper/study (I forget unfortunately) that came out at the San Diego NASS in 2003; it killed them.

    As far as the other products out there currently (including Symphony) I see it more on the "hype" side of things than anything. IMHO

  3. I don't get the skepticism, TSB. BMTI has one product on the market already (oral/maxillofacial), via PMA, and is well on its way to having a second (foot/ankle), also via PMA. If they were going about this like NUVA with Osteocel, using hype and paid consultants, and completely lacking data, I could understand. But BMTI is doing this totally by the book.

  4. No skepticism, mainly curiosity. I was involved in evaluating PRP when there was an attempt to bring it to the market in 2003. Basically asking our readers to opine. This is their blogsite, I'm just the facilitator!