logo-page-magnus
DMSO-FREE CRYOPROTECTANT HARNESSING NATURE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Magnus provides the three key elements ideal for bone formation:

  • An osteoconductive three-dimensional scaffold with cortical and cancellous components.
  • A demineralized bone scaffold with osteoinductive potential.
  • Viable spine-derived cells to support osteogenic healing processes.

Does Particle Size Make a Difference?

magnus-img01

The Magnus viable cellular bone matrix provides a natural, osteoconductive bone scaffold composed of demineralized cortical and mineralized cortical and cancellous bone. The optimized microparticulate bone scaffold size range of 100-300 μm has been shown to induce simultaneous activity of osteoclasts and osteoblasts, demonstrating rapid healing of bone defects.

100-300 μm optimized particle size for bone regeneration has been shown to support direct ossification, with defect healing rates comparable to autograft.

selector 100-300 μm optimized particle size for bone regeneration has been shown to support direct ossification, with defect healing rates comparable to autograft.

Post-Thaw Cell
Characterization

Flow cytometry analysis of the cells post-thaw reveals a unique cell population optimal for osteogenic supplementation, evidenced by high expression of MSC and pluripotent cell markers.

magnus-img02

Cell Preservation:
A Different Approach

magnus-ball-01

DMSO-free cryoprotectant coats the cells to prevent crystalline damage.

magnus-ball-02

Magnus Representative Sample

magnus-ball-03

2.5% DMSO Media Sample

Proper preservation of cellular allografts requires strict adherence to recovery and processing protocols. In the Magnus viable cellular bone matrix, viable spine- derived cells are collected from the vertebral body region of the donor and preserved with the use of a next- generation DMSO-free cryoprotectant.

Industry standard DMSO penetrates and dehydrates the cell from within to prevent crystal formation. At room temperature, DMSO-based cryoprotectants raise concerns about cytotoxicity and negative effects on cell differentiation.

A Growing Body Of Evidence

MIS-TLIF study demonstrated 96% fusion at 12 months.

TLIF FUSION with Viable Allograft.  blue-arrow-2020

magnus-img03

It All Adds Up To:

  • A natural scaffold that provides an optimal microenvironment for osteogenesis.
  • A proprietary DMSO-free cryoprotectant that allows for consistent delivery of viable allograft to the patient.
  • A unique cell population optimal for osteogenic supplementation confirmed through flow cytometry analysis.

Operating Room Ease of Use

  • No rinsing or decanting steps required
  • Average cell viability consistently exceeds 80% post-thaw5
  • Minimum of 150,000 viable cells per cc of allograft5

Midfoot Arthrodesis: Patient with Multiple Comorbidities

12-week post-operative X-rays show complete osseous consolidation of the arthrodesis sites and no pain or swelling with palpation or manipulation of the surgical sites.

magnus-img04

Magnus Viable Cellular Allograft Robust, fibrous moldability

Cortical shavings, crushed cancellous chips, and demineralized cortical bone microparticulate scaffold blend with bone gel mixture

Hydrophobic properties make it more resistant to lavage.

available sizes

magnus-img05

References:

  1. Malinin, T.I., et. al., Particulate bone allograft incorporation in regeneration of osseous defects; importance of particle sizes. The Open Orthopeadics Journal, 2007. 1:19-24
  2. Best, Benjamin. P. Cryprotectant Toxicity: Facts, Issues, and Questions. Rejuvenation Research, 2015. Vol. 18, No.5.
  3. Renzi, S., et al., Mesenchymal stromal cell cryopreservation. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 2012. 10(3): p. 276-281.
    Asghar, W., et al., Preserving human cells for regenerative, reproductive, and transfusion medicine. Biotechnology Journal, 2014. 9: p. 895-903.
  4. Data on file at Vivex Biomedical, Inc.
  5. Tally, William C, et al., Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Viable Allograft: 75 Consecutive Cases at 12-Month Follow-Up. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 2018. Vol. 12, No. 1 pp 76-84.