3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Few Who Made It: Commercially and Clinically Successful Innovative Bone Grafts

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Bone reconstruction techniques are mainly based on the use of tissue grafts and artificial scaffolds. The former presents well-known limitations, such as restricted graft availability and donor site morbidity, while the latter commonly results in poor graft integration and fixation in the bone, which leads to the unbalanced distribution of loads, impaired bone formation, increased pain perception, and risk of fracture, ultimately leading to recurrent surgeries. In the past decade, research efforts have been focused on the development of innovative bone substitutes that not only provide immediate mechanical support, but also ensure appropriate graft anchoring by, for example, promoting de novo bone tissue formation. From the countless studies that aimed in this direction, only few have made the big jump from the benchtop to the bedside, whilst most have perished along the challenging path of clinical translation. Herein, we describe some clinically successful cases of bone device development, including biological glues, stem cell-seeded scaffolds, and gene-functionalized bone substitutes. We also discuss the ventures that these technologies went through, the hindrances they faced and the common grounds among them, which might have been key for their success. The ultimate objective of this perspective article is to highlight the important aspects of the clinical translation of an innovative idea in the field of bone grafting, with the aim of commercially and clinically informing new research approaches in the sector.

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned.

          Increasingly, reports of frequent and occasionally catastrophic complications associated with use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in spinal fusion surgeries are being published. In the original peer review, industry-sponsored publications describing the use of rhBMP-2 in spinal fusion, adverse events of these types and frequency were either not reported at all or not reported to be associated with rhBMP-2 use. Some authors and investigators have suggested that these discrepancies were related to inadequate peer review and editorial oversight. To compare the conclusions regarding the safety and related efficacy published in the original rhBMP-2 industry-sponsored trials with subsequently available Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data summaries, follow-up publications, and administrative and organizational databases. Systematic review. Results and conclusions from original industry-sponsored rhBMP-2 publications regarding safety and related efficacy were compared with available FDA data summaries, follow-up publications, and administrative and organizational database analyses. There were 13 original industry-sponsored rhBMP-2 publications regarding safety and efficacy, including reports and analyses of 780 patients receiving rhBMP-2 within prospective controlled study protocols. No rhBMP-2-associated adverse events (0%) were reported in any of these studies (99% confidence interval of adverse event rate <0.5%). The study designs of the industry-sponsored rhBMP-2 trials for use in posterolateral fusions and posterior lateral interbody fusion were found to have potential methodological bias against the control group. The reported morbidity of iliac crest donor site pain was also found to have serious potential design bias. Comparative review of FDA documents and subsequent publications revealed originally unpublished adverse events and internal inconsistencies. From this review, we suggest an estimate of adverse events associated with rhBMP-2 use in spine fusion ranging from 10% to 50% depending on approach. Anterior cervical fusion with rhBMP-2 has an estimated 40% greater risk of adverse events with rhBMP-2 in the early postoperative period, including life-threatening events. After anterior interbody lumbar fusion rates of implant displacement, subsidence, infection, urogenital events, and retrograde ejaculation were higher after using rhBMP-2 than controls. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion use was associated with radiculitis, ectopic bone formation, osteolysis, and poorer global outcomes. In posterolateral fusions, the risk of adverse effects associated with rhBMP-2 use was equivalent to or greater than that of iliac crest bone graft harvesting, and 15% to 20% of subjects reported early back pain and leg pain adverse events; higher doses of rhBMP-2 were also associated with a greater apparent risk of new malignancy. Level I and Level II evidence from original FDA summaries, original published data, and subsequent studies suggest possible study design bias in the original trials, as well as a clear increased risk of complications and adverse events to patients receiving rhBMP-2 in spinal fusion. This risk of adverse events associated with rhBMP-2 is 10 to 50 times the original estimates reported in the industry-sponsored peer-reviewed publications. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges.

            The worldwide incidence of bone disorders and conditions has trended steeply upward and is expected to double by 2020, especially in populations where aging is coupled with increased obesity and poor physical activity. Engineered bone tissue has been viewed as a potential alternative to the conventional use of bone grafts, due to their limitless supply and no disease transmission. However, bone tissue engineering practices have not proceeded to clinical practice due to several limitations or challenges. Bone tissue engineering aims to induce new functional bone regeneration via the synergistic combination of biomaterials, cells, and factor therapy. In this review, we discuss the fundamentals of bone tissue engineering, highlighting the current state of this field. Further, we review the recent advances of biomaterial and cell-based research, as well as approaches used to enhance bone regeneration. Specifically, we discuss widely investigated biomaterial scaffolds, micro- and nano-structural properties of these scaffolds, and the incorporation of biomimetic properties and/or growth factors. In addition, we examine various cellular approaches, including the use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), embryonic stem cells (ESCs), adult stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and their clinical application strengths and limitations. We conclude by overviewing the challenges that face the bone tissue engineering field, such as the lack of sufficient vascularization at the defect site, and the research aimed at functional bone tissue engineering. These challenges will drive future research in the field.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Bone biomaterials and interactions with stem cells

              Bone biomaterials play a vital role in bone repair by providing the necessary substrate for cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation and by modulating cell activity and function. In past decades, extensive efforts have been devoted to developing bone biomaterials with a focus on the following issues: (1) developing ideal biomaterials with a combination of suitable biological and mechanical properties; (2) constructing a cell microenvironment with pores ranging in size from nanoscale to submicro- and microscale; and (3) inducing the oriented differentiation of stem cells for artificial-to-biological transformation. Here we present a comprehensive review of the state of the art of bone biomaterials and their interactions with stem cells. Typical bone biomaterials that have been developed, including bioactive ceramics, biodegradable polymers, and biodegradable metals, are reviewed, with an emphasis on their characteristics and applications. The necessary porous structure of bone biomaterials for the cell microenvironment is discussed, along with the corresponding fabrication methods. Additionally, the promising seed stem cells for bone repair are summarized, and their interaction mechanisms with bone biomaterials are discussed in detail. Special attention has been paid to the signaling pathways involved in the focal adhesion and osteogenic differentiation of stem cells on bone biomaterials. Finally, achievements regarding bone biomaterials are summarized, and future research directions are proposed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Bioeng Biotechnol
                Front Bioeng Biotechnol
                Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.
                Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-4185
                01 September 2020
                2020
                : 8
                : 952
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Regenerative, Modular & Developmental Engineering Laboratory, National University of Ireland Galway , Galway, Ireland
                [2] 2Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Research in Medical Devices (CÚRAM), National University of Ireland Galway , Galway, Ireland
                [3] 3Division of Applied Materials Science, Department of Engineering Sciences, Uppsala University , Uppsala, Sweden
                [4] 4GPBio Ltd. , Shannon, Ireland
                [5] 5Histograft LLC , Moscow, Russia
                [6] 6Federal Medical Biophysical Center of FMBA of Russia , Moscow, Russia
                [7] 7I.I. Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University , Saint Petersburg, Russia
                [8] 8State Institute of Genetic & Regenerative Medicine NAMSU , Kyiv, Ukraine
                [9] 9Medical Company ilaya® , Kyiv, Ukraine
                [10] 10Industrie Biomediche Insubri , Lugano, Switzerland
                [11] 11Viscus Biologics LLC , Cleveland, OH, United States
                [12] 12Sofradim Production, A Medtronic Company , Trévoux, France
                Author notes

                Edited by: Diego Mantovani, Laval University, Canada

                Reviewed by: Lorenzo Fassina, University of Pavia, Italy; Enrico Lucarelli, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute (IRCCS), Italy

                *Correspondence: Dimitrios I. Zeugolis, dimitrios.zeugolis@ 123456nuigalway.ie

                This article was submitted to Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, a section of the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology

                Article
                10.3389/fbioe.2020.00952
                7490292
                32984269
                0097c669-bae0-4aca-914c-a570a6af1a05
                Copyright © 2020 Sallent, Capella-Monsonís, Procter, Bozo, Deev, Zubov, Vasyliev, Perale, Pertici, Baker, Gingras, Bayon and Zeugolis.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 09 May 2020
                : 23 July 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 87, Pages: 8, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 10.13039/100010665
                Funded by: Science Foundation Ireland 10.13039/501100001602
                Award ID: 15/CDA/3629
                Categories
                Bioengineering and Biotechnology
                Mini Review

                bone grafting,bioadhesives,bioactive scaffolds,cell therapies,clinical trials,commercialization

                Comments

                Comment on this article