Clinical Applications of Bone Tissue Engineering in Orthopedic Trauma
- 27 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Orthopedic trauma is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although many fractures tend to heal if treated appropriately either by non-operative or operative methods, delayed or failed healing, as well as infections, can lead to devastating complications. Tissue engineering is an exciting, emerging field with much scientific and clinical relevance in potentially overcoming the current limitations in the treatment of orthopedic injuries.
While direct translation of bone tissue engineering technologies to clinical use remains challenging, considerable research has been done in studying how cells, scaffolds, and signals may be used to enhance acute fracture healing and to address the problematic scenarios of nonunion and critical-sized bone defects. Taken together, the research findings suggest that tissue engineering may be considered to stimulate angiogenesis and osteogenesis, to modulate the immune response to fractures, to improve the biocompatibility of implants, to prevent or combat infection, and to fill large gaps created by traumatic bone loss. The abundance of preclinical data supports the high potential of bone tissue engineering for clinical application, although a number of barriers to translation must first be overcome.
This review focuses on the current and potential applications of bone tissue engineering approaches in orthopedic trauma with specific attention paid to acute fracture healing, nonunion, and critical-sized bone defects.
KeywordsOrthopedic trauma Bone fracture Bone tissue engineering Stem cells Biomaterials
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors (Peter N. Mittwede, Riccardo Gottardi, Peter G. Alexander, Ivan S. Tarkin, and Rocky S. Tuan) declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This review article does not contain any human or animal studies performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.Agarwal-Harding KJ, Meara JG, Greenberg SLM, et al. Estimating the global incidence of femoral fracture from road traffic conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;31:1–9.Google Scholar
- 9.Quarto R, Giannoni P. Bone tissue engineering: past-present-future. Methods Mol Bio. 2016;1416:21–33.Google Scholar
- 18.Olivares-Navarrette R, Raines AL, Hyzy SL, et al. Osteoblast maturation and new bone formation in response to titanium implant surface features are reduced with age. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:1773–83.Google Scholar
- 25.• Lu M, Liao J, Dong J, Wu J, Qiu H, Zhou X, et al. An effective treatment of experimental osteomyelitis using the antimicrobial titanium/silver-containing nHP66 (nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66) nanoscaffold biomaterials. Sci Rep. 2016;6:39174. This study shows that in a rabbit model, a scaffold containing silver ions and oxidized titanium has antibacterial effect and is effective in combating osteomyelitis.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kiernan CH, Wolvius EB, Brama PAJ, et al. The immune response to allogeneic differentiated mesenchymal stem cells in the context of bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2018;24:75–83.Google Scholar
- 53.Zhang J, Ebraheim N, Lause GE, et al. A comparison of absorbable screws and metallic plates in treating calcaneal fractures: a prospective randomized trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72:E106–10.Google Scholar
- 55.Böstman OM, Pihlajamäki HK. Adverse tissue reactions to bioabsorbable fixation devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:216–27.Google Scholar
- 57.Tuan R. Role of adult stem/progenitor cells in osseointegration and implant loosening. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2011;26(Suppl):50–62.Google Scholar
- 73.Babhulkar S, Pande K, Babhulkar S. Nonunion of the diaphysis of long bones. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;NA;50–6.Google Scholar
- 74.Metsemakers WJ, Kuehl R, Moriarty TF, et al. Infection after fracture fixation: current surgical and microbiological concepts. Injury. 2016;1383(16):30470.Google Scholar
- 82.Calori GM, Colombo M, Mazza E, et al. Monotherapy vs. polytherapy in the treatment of forearm non-unions and bond defects. Injury. 2013;44(Suppl 1):S63–9.Google Scholar
- 91.•• Baker RM, Tseng LF, Iannolo MT, Oest ME, Henderson JH. Self-deploying shape memory polymer scaffolds for grafting and stabilizing complex bone defects: a mouse femoral segmental defect study. Biomaterials. 2016;76:388–98. This study shows that shape memory polymer grafts are effective in integrating into mouse femoral defects and are able to provide torsional stability at the location of the defect.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 92.Decambron A, Fournet A, Bensidhoum, M, et al. Low-dose BMP-2 and MSC dual delivery onto coral scaffold for critical-size bone defect regeneration in sheep. J Orthop Res. 2017;35:2637–45.Google Scholar
- 93.• Bosemark P, Perdikouri C, Pelkonen M, Isaksson H, Tägil M. The masquelet induced membrane technique with BMP and a synthetic scaffold can heal a rat femoral critical size defect. J Orthop Res. 2015;33:488–95. This article shows that treatment with three agents combined (BMP-7, a tricalcium phosphate hydroxyapatite scaffold, and systemic bisphosphanate) was more effective in filling a critical-sized rat femoral defect than with one or two of the agents.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar