Every company in this sector claims that their product is better utilizing biologic and synthetic buzz words like mesenchymal stem cells, demineralized bone matrix, tri-calcium phosphate, silicate substituted calcium phosphate, allograft with stem cells, bone morphogenic proteins, osteoblast mitosis, osteocyte differentiation, to name a view. So in the spirit of debate, TSB wants to know what are readers believe is the best biologic product in the market versus the best synthetic by substantiating its efficacy? And please, do not quote any cervical fusion studies because we all know that you can spit into the C-Spine and it will heal.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Spine Blogger Alert - Who Dat Graft Material
Recently, there has been a rash of promotional articles regarding the field of biologics. Any reader that is a skeptic must acknowledge that one has to wonder what the underlying motivation is of those writers that are proponents of marketing this arena as the new frontier in spine. Understandably, it's difficult getting excited about another screw, plate or piece of PEEK. Could it be that these thespians truly understand the science and therefore can lay claim to substantiate the efficacy of these technologies? Could it be that they have an investment in some of these companies and are looking to further commercialize a specific company's technology? Or, could it be that this is a segment that needs definition.