Worlds first spinal transplant carried out:

[txbearsfan81]

Worlds first spinal transplant carried out:
I am constantly searching for new treatment options in my effort to not get fusion surgery. I have stumbled upon some research by searching the Pubmed website which I do from time to time. Given the success of this procedure I am shocked that it is not being followed up on or being performed for us spineys who are suffering bad!

Basically scientists/researchers a couple years prior to 2008 removed good intervertebral discs from recently deceased people and replaced the damaged/bad intervertebral discs with these good discs. The outcome? Where they successful YEARS out after the procedure when the trial ended in 2008? See for yourself! Be sure to also check out the pictures!

Here is a link to the research on the Pub Med website:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19005699

Here is another article talking about it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444096/Worlds-spinal-transplant-carried-out.html

My question is, if this was so successful why is it not being performed now?! Why, currently, is our only hope damaging fusion?!

I checked the clinical trials.gov site thoroughly and no trials are being done currently or since the positive results of this study. Nothing! Replacing the bad disc(s) with a good disc(s) makes so much sense. Why limit the mobility/movement and damage the rest of the spine with fusion? Why put artificial metal (and other materials - ADR) if you can put healthy discs in its place! Why re-invent the wheel? I realize this research was done in China and the US usually drags its feet (due to the FDA bottleneck and other reasons) in regards to experimental stuff usually, and we are falling behind other countries, but come on! Millions of people are suffering daily and desperately need an option other then fusion!

I talked with my neurosurgeon about upcoming products in clinical trials (clinicaltrial.gov) as well as stuff that medical science has learned after clinical trials (Pub Med). In fact before my appointment I printed out all the relevant clinical trials and Pub Med info that was relevant to my situation. It wasn’t a lot but it was something. I didn’t talk to him about this particular breakthrough. Most of all the research that has recently been done and the clinical trials that are going on now he was in the dark about. I am sure he is not alone. He is a smart man but I think with the huge amount of research/advancement that is being done in all fields of medicine it would be next to impossible for any medical doctor to keep up with it all. That is why it is so important to make sure they know about these trials and this research!

I will be sure to talk with my Neurosurgeon about spinal disc transplantation at my next appointment! Maybe you should do the same!

I am scheduled to see him in a few weeks. Right after I get an MRI of my neck to supplement the one I had done on my T and L spine.

Chris

[trkdoc714]

Chris,

I looked into this while searching a few years before surgery. It seemed like a promising alternative but, if memory serves, there were aspects not covered such as long term results and the source of the discs.

An article I read accused the Chinese study as harvesting discs from executed criminals and implanting them in other prisoners. There was also a question that the results didn't track the patient outcome legitimately.

The articles mildly veiled these observations but were enough for me to eliminate from further research.

Bob

[txbearsfan81]

Trkdoc,
Thank you for your post. Im not sure what long term is considered. According to this study which concluded (or at least was published in 2008), the trial had been going on for 5 years prior. It wasn’t just started. In fact if you click on one of the pictures that particular case in the trial was started 6 years prior to 2008. All were still showing positive results. So 5-6 years out and the discs still appeared healthy and were undamaged like the previous discs. Id say that is encouraging. I think spinal fusion surgeons and ADR disc surgeons will tell you that you would be lucky to make it 10 years and you will probably need another surgery. Then another 10 years after that. Then another... you get the point. If this procedure is valid in my opinion having a natural disc is way more beneficial to the rest of your spine then hard bone (fusion) or other hard products with metals and such (ADR). Even if these transplanted natural discs lasted only as long as the time it takes in between fusions or in between replacing a worn out ADR I think it would be worth it! It potentially wouldnt be damaging the rest of the spine like the other two options. And if I need surgery every 5-10 years whether its with a natural disc, ADR or fusion then I need a surgery every 5-10 years. It wouldnt matter what I had done if this was the case. The biggest issue here is that I belive with a natural disc I would be preserving the rest of the spine. I preserve the rest of the spine to a degree with ADR and none with fusion. So getting sugery just to replace that damaged level every 5-10 years is better then getting surgery at this level every 5-10 years then when the next surgey comes up its at these two (or more) levels and when the next surgery comes up its at 3 (or more levels) and when the nex..... you get the point.

In regards to the source of the disc, I don’t see how that should be an issue as long as the results weren’t tainted by it and nothing unethical was performed. If it was done on prisoners it was done on prisoners. They have symptoms and disease and need relief such as us. If the study was done on saints then it was done on saints. If it was done on everyone in between it was done on everyone in between. As long as the results were positive and showed positive for as long as they have and nothing unethical was done then great! I can't find an article that says who it was performed on (prisoners or otherwise), just the one showing it was done on humans not in animal trials. Which is good enough for me. I am just answering the statement you made about it being done on prisoners.

As far as not tracking the patient outcome legitimately, you may or may not have a point. I just stumbled upon this research a while back and consider publications in Pub Med to be a reliable source of completed research. A reliable source that both doctors/researchers (and other legitimate sources) submit legitimate research/discovery. I hold it in much higher regard then the National Inquier with “bat boy” or just some side clinic or side doctor trying to make a quick buck by selling a product/service. There tends to be a lot of those. Like I said though, you may be right. I cant find any other research regarding this either positive or negative. The trial ended in 2007 and the results published in 2008. In 2007 they were 5-6 years post surgery and still showing positive results at that time. That would mean the trial started in the 2001-2002 range which would make 2011-2012 the 10 year mark.

You said that “the articles mildly veiled these observations”. Can you please provide me with the articles you are referring too. As I said, I am having trouble locating other resources and this is something I think looks promising that I want to show to my Neurosurgeon. If that trial was proven fraudulent or it was debunked Id like to read these articles so I don’t waste my time.

I did find this article relating to the research but that is it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444096/Worlds-spinal-transplant-carried-out.html

[KBear]

Regarding it not being 'long term', 5 or 6 years is short when talking spinal implants. I still hear ADR referred to as 'new' and that it hasn't been out long enough to know how long it lasts, and it's been out for over 2 decades. On needing more surgery in 5-10 years, all 3 surgeons I consulted felt that the ADR would make it and I'd never need more surgery (but like I just said above, the first person to get one has had it 20 something years and is still doing good, but no idea if he will go to 30, 40,etc.)

[txbearsfan81]

Thanks for the reply KBear,

If ADR can last as long as you say your doctors have told you (you never need a replacement again) that is awesome news! Every single doctor, surgeon and specialist I have spoken to has said otherwise, and I have been to a few. But I probably am talking to the wrong people. If it lasts as long as you say that is such a relief. For so long I have held the belief that both ADR and spinal fusion would require future surgeries. One because of damaged other levels (fusion) or that I would need tune ups (replacing worn out Artificial discs).

Do you know where I can research clinical/proven data regarding the longevity of artificial discs? A website or someone I can contact? Something that shows that it is the norm that the artificial discs do not need replacement and not just some people making it to x amount of years? Or better yet something that shows which ADR implant is better. I see a lot of discs on trial on clinical trials.gov and most of the discs I have seen in the past do not make it through trials due to faliures. I have yet to read a research paper that says that the few remaining artificial discs are reliable for the long term on a regular basis. I usually read articles on the contrary. But again, I admit, I may be looking in the wrong spots. I probably will need some type of surgery. I am holding out for as long as I can. If I had to go the fusion or the ADR route I would go ADR for sure. Even if it meant I needed replacement surgeries. I believe it would be the least damaging route given that I have multiple levels of damage. Seeing the research (not just opinion or person x making it to x years) would make the decision easier. So much easier.

I still believe the future looks promising for us Spineys. If proven viable, safe and consistent, having a natural disc implanted whether from a donor or from our own discs that are grown outside the body would (in my opinion) be better then artificial materials trying to mimic a disc or fusing the joint.

There are promising studies about to kick off. Mesoblast is going to start up their clinical real soon (projected May 1st, 2011). The Mesoblast research/progress to me is the most promising. In other areas, I just read that one doctor is trying to grow intervertebral discs from scratch outside the body. Another study I found shows that some research shows that the cytokine molecule interleukin-17, supports the burgeoning theory that an immune response plays a significant role in disc disease. If that is the case maybe future IL-7 blockers can be manufactured to suppress the immune response. And of course, this topic of having a donor disc replace the bad discs and successfully holding for 5+ years to me is very impressive and encouraging. I believe fusion is archaic, painful and ultimately damaging. We need more research!

[KBear]

Regarding it not being 'long term', 5 or 6 years is short when talking spinal implants. I still hear ADR referred to as 'new' and that it hasn't been out long enough to know how long it lasts, and it's been out for over 2 decades. On needing more surgery in 5-10 years, all 3 surgeons I consulted felt that the ADR would make it and I'd never need more surgery

Maybe I wasn't clear, I said they 'felt' that ADR would make it. That does not say they told me factually that it would make it, or that was some long term study on my ADR. Just their opinion, which I put stock in since they are well known, well respected in their field (which I'm not saying means they will be right, just that I value their opinion.)

(but like I just said above, the first person to get one has had it 20 something years and is still doing good, but no idea if he will go to 30, 40,etc.)

As I said, the doctors think this, but there is no way to know if it will last forever, since the first one ever (not referring to a random person above, talking about the first ADR in the world, that guy) is only 20+ years old, then no telling. Will he be good for another 10 years or will he have pain next week? No one knows, but so far he has 20+ years.