Bone Marrow Aspiration Device

BETTER BY DESIGN

Overcome the Disadvantages of Traditional Trocar Needles

Aspirate from multiple geographies while limiting peripheral blood dilution — from a single access site, without a centrifuge.

Traditional Trocar
Traditional open-tip trocar needle aspirating peripheral blood alongside marrow

Open Distal Tip

Aspirates freely through the open end — drawing in peripheral blood alongside marrow at a single anatomical point and diluting the cellular yield.

Cervos BMA — Marrow Cellution
Cervos BMA closed distal tip with side-port aspiration into undisturbed cancellous bone

Closed Distal Tip With Optimized Side Ports

Forces 100% of aspiration through precision side ports — blocking peripheral blood dilution and capturing higher cell counts from undisturbed cancellous bone.

ENGINEERED FOR PRECISION

Every Component, Purpose-Built

Hover over the device to explore each component — or tap a card below.

Cervos Marrow Cellution aspiration device
Hover a marker to reveal each component
BIOLOGICALLY COMPARABLE

Compared to the established gold standard for osteogenic potential — cancellous bone autograft — the aspirate obtained using the Marrow Cellution devices is functionally equivalent.1–5

CFU-f counts and Total Nucleated Cell density track shoulder-to-shoulder with autograft across four independent studies (n = 37 pooled).

CFU-f per mL

Mesenchymal Stem & Progenitor Cell Density

Cancellous Autograftgold standard, n = 101
4,564
Cervos BMApooled, n = 372–5
5,010
Scale: 0 → 6,000 per mL

TNC ×106 per mL

Total Nucleated Cells

Cancellous Autograftgold standard, n = 101
55.7
Cervos BMApooled, n = 372–5
50.5
Scale: 0 → 70 ×106 per mL

Per-Study Data Breakdown

Individual sample results from each study that comprise the Cervos BMA pooled n = 37 cohort.

Study Device / System Sample Size
n		 CFU-f
per mL		 TNC ×106
per mL
Muschler1 Cancellous Bone Autograft (gold standard) 10 4,564 55.7
Lutz5 Cervos BMA — Marrow Cellution 22 4,838 47.0
Scarpone4 Cervos BMA — Marrow Cellution 5 5,653 43.4
Tortland3 Cervos BMA — Marrow Cellution 5 4,828 55.1
Bianco2 Cervos BMA — Marrow Cellution 5 5,309 68.5
Pooled Cervos BMA — Marrow Cellution 37 5,010 50.5

Higher CFU-f counts per mL within bone marrow aspirate concentrate have been directly linked to superior clinical outcomes, with research establishing that specific progenitor cell thresholds must be met to achieve meaningful tissue regeneration.6–8

References — 1 Data on File: Muschler. · 2 Data on File: Bianco. · 3 Data on File: Tortland. · 4 Data on File: Scarpone. · 5 Data on File: Lutz. · 6 Hernigou (2002). · 7 Hernigou (2005). · 8 Pettine (2015).
WHY MARROW CELLUTION

Eliminate the Need for a Centrifuge

Minimize Procedure Time: Aspirate to Application®

A 2-minute harvest, compared to 20 minutes required when using traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Concentration (BMAC) systems.

Capital Equipment Burden

High upfront and ongoing costs: centrifugation systems require significant capital investment, routine maintenance, and dedicated space, increasing total procedural cost beyond the disposables themselves.

Sterile Field Complications

Transferring aspirate out of the sterile field for processing introduces additional handling steps, workflow complexity, and potential contamination or re-entry challenges.

“

The advantages of Cervos (Marrow Cellution) versus spin systems are it is more efficient for the physician and staff, safer from an infection point of view, and it has equal if not superior regenerative properties from a biological standpoint.

Dr. Anil Ranawat, MD — Hospital for Special Surgery
Dr. Anil Ranawat, MD
Hospital for Special Surgery

Schedule a Marrow Cellution™ Demo

Contact Us Schedule a Demo