Every two or three years a group of EU scientists and surgeons gather to compare their work with stem cells in the spine. The last meeting, in 2007 in Leipzig, presented a range and quality of work regarding mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), embryonic stem cells, and other trophic, cellular implants that was qualitatively quite different from the kind of studies we typically see at U.S. meetings. And you are invited to join them for this year’s event.
Europe's Spine Stem Cell Meeting
4 min read Premium comments
BioSpine 3 convenes three weeks from now (September 1-3) in Amsterdam. Leading the way is Barend J. van Royen of the Skeletal Tissue Engineering Group of Vrije Universiteit (VU) University Medical Center in Amsterdam and joining him as co-chair is Hans Jorg Meisel of the Berufsgenossenschaftliche Kliniken Bergmannstrost (Department of Neurosurgery) in Halle, Germany. The other organizers are Marco N. Helder, also with VU Medical Center, and Theo H. Smit, from the Departments of Physics and Medical Technology at VU.
The rest of this itinerant group of regenerative medicine researchers include:
-
The very eminent Frank Emmrich who heads up the Translational Center for Regenerative Medicine in Leipzig
Robert Gunzburg who is in private practice in Antwerp but conducts some of the most interesting research in spinal regenerative medicine in Europe
Professor of Tissue Repair and Translational Research at UMC Utrecht Wouter Dhert
Cody Bunger who is Chairman of the Orthopaedic Research Group in Aarhus
Dietmar Hutmacher who co-founded the Tissue Engineering Group in Queensland and was one of the leading researchers in the Singapore cellular institute and,
Finally, one U.S. researcher, Timothy Ganey, Director of the Orthopaedic Research and Technology Development at the Atlanta Medical Center.
Having attended dozens of stem cell and regenerative technology meetings, we can say with confidence that this is one of the best. The studies are current and they cover elements of MSCs and other regenerative implants that you won’t find at com♦parative U.S. meetings. Over the past decade, the EU was able to conduct research without many of the restrictions that U.S. researchers struggled with. The result is really, really interesting.
If you are active or interested in cellular therapies and can possibly go, you should. Here is the link to register: www.biospine.org.
Here’s what we expect will be presented at the meeting (we will be there):
-
New studies regarding embryonic, pluripotent and adult stem cells. Dr. Emmrich, for example, recently conducted a key study of allogenic bone marrow cells which showed that they can trigger endogenous hematopoiesis and faster recovery in the treatment of hematological malignancies (blood-based cancers). Dr. Emmrich is also the author of several key studies on the role of x-chromosome genes TIMP1 and IL9R in the development of rheumatoid arthritis
New studies regarding the treatment of stenosis using novel mechanical means to decompress. How the clinician may employ cellular therapies to treat the elderly spine patient is of great importance here. Dr. Gunzburg has written extensively about such topics as conservative and biological treatments of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly, treatment of vertebral fractures, and the use of interspinous implants.
New studies that dive even deeper into bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs), platelet-leukocyte gels, and various cellular implant materials and their effect on bone mineral density. We expect to see quite a bit of new information about the progression of bone mineral disease and what the clinician might consider to slow its progression. Certainly, one presentation we’re looking forward to will discuss techniques of inducing BMP-2s in the patient by using other biomaterials and trophic implants. (It’s the idea of inducing the patient’s own BMP that attracts us.)
Of course, what self-respecting biomaterials meeting would be complete without a section on smart scaffolds? Watch for papers regarding carboxymethylcellulose collagen, or other novel materials with cellular and other trophic implants.
Regeneration of the disc is the new hot topic among regenerative technology researchers. Several recent studies have shown that degenerated discs can be regenerated with cellular and protein therapies. We would certainly expect to see the latest and greatest from European researchers on this subject.
Related to disc regeneration, we would also expect to hear more about cartilage repair studies with hydrogels, polycaprolactone collagen membrane, and other tissue engineering materials.
Finally, we are looking forward to papers regarding:
-
The use of adipose-derived precursor cells in the spine
Spinal cord repair strategies and technologies
The use of nano particles for visualization
New insights into minimally invasive surgical procedures
Understanding and creating a risk profile for modern therapies/decision making
Global regulatory issues and ethical problems
Pre-validation of the patient and creating a balance of therapeutically important approaches
The entire subject of biomaterials, cellular products, and trophic implants has become one of the most intriguing and potentially disruptive areas in orthopedics and spine medicine. Meetings like this, which address cellular therapies, applications for growth factors, regeneration and degeneration of musculoskeletal structures are immensely valuable during this period of early adopter usage and peer-to-peer discussions.
All leading orthopedic and spinal surgeons and researchers should use these opportunities to meet directly with the researchers and scientists who are conducting these studies and discuss embryonic, pluripotent and adult stem cells, skeletal application of polymers, spinal cord repair and cellular repair strategies. Coming rapidly on the horizon are other technologies, such as nano particles for visualization, smart scaffolds and new, more conservative therapies, also tied to these trophic and regenerative technologies.
Meetings like these are absolutely essential right now and BioSpine 3, in particular, promises to bring a new and valuable perspective to U.S. surgeons and researchers.
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.