AzTrials
AzTrials

Bone DiseasesNCT00147823

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

A study testing Vitoss Alone and Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate in people with Bone Diseases, run by State University of New York - Upstate Medical University at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This is a prospective randomized study comparing Vitoss alone versus Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate in benign bone lesions. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
Conditions the study is for
Bone Diseases
What is being tested?
Vitoss Alone and Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
63 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Dec 2004to Dec 2011
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients with a benign bone lesion requiring surgical curettage

Who cannot join

  • 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.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • SUNY Upstate Medical University

    Syracuse, New York, 13210

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Vitoss Alone Versus Vitoss With Bone Marrow Aspirate in Benign Bone Lesions

This is a prospective randomized study comparing Vitoss alone versus Vitoss with bone marrow aspirate in benign bone lesions.

Read the 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:

  1. presence of graft within the soft tissues,
  2. presence of a rim of radiolucency surrounding the grafted defect,
  3. size/circumference of the rim of radiolucency,
  4. resorption of graft material,
  5. trabeculation through the defect and
  6. 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.

Conditions
Bone Diseases
Being tested
Vitoss Alone, Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate
Keywords
Bone formation, Bone lesions, Benign bone lesion
Medical subject headings
Bone Diseases

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Vitoss AloneDevice

    Synthetic bone graft material

  • Vitoss with Bone Marrow AspirateDevice

    Vitoss mixed with Bone Marrow aspirate

Study groups in NCT00147823
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Vitoss with bone marrow aspirateExperimentalAddition of Vitoss to the bone marrow aspirate
Receives: Device: Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate
Vitoss AloneActive comparatorvitoss alone
Receives: Device: Vitoss Alone

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. 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.

    Measured: 24 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted7 Sep 2005 (estimated)
  2. Study startDec 2004
  3. Primary completionDec 2011
  4. Study completionDec 2011

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
63 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00147823
Sponsor's protocol ID
SUNY UMU IRB # 5130
Status last verified
Dec 2013
First submitted
1 Sep 2005
Last updated
8 Jun 2015
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Vitoss Alone and Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate in people with Bone Diseases, run by State University of New York - Upstate Medical University at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Jun 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 8 Jun 2015). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Resorption of Graft Material (GR) Compared at 24 Months (time frame: 24 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Jun 2015.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in