Theranostics 2020; 10(14):6544-6560. doi:10.7150/thno.44428
Bioactive poly (methyl methacrylate) bone cement for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures
1. State Key Laboratory of New Ceramics and Fine Processing, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine & Key Laboratory of Musculoskeletal System Degeneration and Regeneration Translational Research of Zhejiang, Hangzhou 310016, China
3. Department of Spinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical School of Ningbo University, Ningbo 315020, China
4. Shimadzu (China) Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, Shenzhen 518042, China
*These authors contributed equally to this work.
Zhu J, Yang S, Cai K, Wang S, Qiu Z, Huang J, Jiang G, Wang X, Fang X. Bioactive poly (methyl methacrylate) bone cement for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Theranostics 2020; 10(14):6544-6560. doi:10.7150/thno.44428. Available from http://www.thno.org/v10p6544.htm
Rationale: Poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement is one of the most commonly used biomaterials for augmenting/stabilizing osteoporosis-induced vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs), such as percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP). However, its clinical applications are limited by its poor performance in high compressive modulus and weak bonding to bone. To address these issues, a bioactive composite bone cement was developed for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, in which mineralized collagen (MC) was incorporated into the PMMA bone cement (MC-PMMA).
Methods: The in vitro properties of PMMA and MC-PMMA composite bone cement were determined, including setting time, compressive modulus, adherence, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation of rat bone mesenchymal stem cells. The in vivo properties of both cements were evaluated in an animal study (36 osteoporotic New Zealand female rabbits divided equally between the two bone cement groups; PVP at L5) and a small-scale and short-term clinical study (12 patients in each of the two bone cement groups; follow-up: 2 years).
Results: In terms of value for PMMA bone cement, the handling properties of MC-PMMA bone cement were not significantly different. However, both compressive strength and compressive modulus were found to be significantly lower. In the rabbit model study, at 8 and 12 weeks post-surgery, bone regeneration was more significant in MC-PMMA bone cement (cortical bone thickness, osteoblast area, new bone area, and bone ingrowth %; each significantly higher). In the clinical study, at a follow-up of 2 years, both the Visual Analogue Score and Oswestry Disability Index were significantly reduced when MC-PMMA cement was used.
Conclusions: MC-PMMA bone cement demonstrated good adaptive mechanical properties and biocompatibility and may be a promising alternative to commercial PMMA bone cements for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in clinical settings. While the present results for MC-PMMA bone cement are encouraging, further study of this cement is needed to explore its viability as an ideal alternative for use in PVP and BKP.
Keywords: osteoporosis, vertebroplasty, balloon kyphoplasty, poly (methyl methacrylate) bone cement, mineralized collagen