Periosteum is important for bone homoeostasis through the release of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and their effect on osteoprogenitor cells. Smoking has an adverse effect on fracture healing and bone regeneration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of smoking on the expression of the BMPs of human periosteum. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed for BMP-2,-4,-6,-7 gene expression in periosteal samples obtained from 45 fractured bones (19 smokers, 26 non-smokers) and 60 non-fractured bones (21 smokers, 39 non-smokers). A hierarchical model of BMP gene expression (BMP-2 > BMP-6 > BMP-4 > BMP-7) was demonstrated in all samples. When smokers and non-smokers were compared, a remarkable reduction in the gene expression of BMP-2, -4 and -6 was noticed in smokers. The comparison of fracture and non-fracture groups demonstrated a higher gene expression of BMP-2, -4 and -7 in the non-fracture samples. Within the subgroups (fracture and non-fracture), BMP gene expression in smokers was either lower but without statistical significance in the majority of BMPs, or similar to that in non-smokers with regard to BMP-4 in fracture and BMP-7 in non-fracture samples. In smokers, BMP gene expression of human periosteum was reduced, demonstrating the effect of smoking at the molecular level by reduction of mRNA transcription of periosteal BMPs. Among the BMPs studied, BMP-2 gene expression was significantly higher, highlighting its role in bone homoeostasis

INTRODUCTION. The hip arthroplasty implant is currently growing up both in orthopedic and trauma practice. This increases the frequency of prosthesis revision due to implant loosening often associated with periprosthetic osteolysis that determine the failure and lead to a loss of bone substance. Nowadays there are numerous biotechnologies seeking to join or substitute the autologous or omologous bone use. These biotechnologies (mesenchymal stromal cells, growth factors and bone substitutes) may be used in such situations, however, the literature doesn't offer class 1 clinical evidences in this field of application. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a literature review using the universally validated search engines in the biomedical field: PubMed / Medline, Google Scholar, Scopus, EMBASE. The keywords used were: “Growth Factors”, “Platelet Rich Plasma”, “OP-1”, “BMP”, “BMP-2”, “BMP-7”, “Demineralized Bone Matrix”, “Stem Cell”, “Bone Marrow”, “Scaffold”, “Bone Substitutes” were crossed with “hip”, “revision”, “replacement” / “arthroplasty”, “bone loss” / “osteolysis.”. RESULTS. The search led to 321 items, of these were considered relevant: as regards the growth factors 21 articles related to in vivo animal studies and 2 articles of human clinical use of BMPs and 1 single article on the use of PRP; as regards the mesenchymal stromal cells 2 items of application in animals; as regards the use of bone substitutes we have analyzed a review of this application. DISCUSSION. The use of biotechnologies in hip prosthetic revisions has produced conflicting results: autologous growth factors (PRP) have definitely been proven effective in maxillofacial surgery, in animal studies the results of BMPs are inconsistent with articles that validate their use and others that don't recommend it. Clinical application has demonstrated, today, the limited use of BMP-7 in revisions with even an increased risk of early re-mobilization, PRP appears to be rather effective only in the early stages of peri-prosthetic osteolysis. The mesenchymal cells can increase the chances of recovery and integration of the grafts but an important variable is the number of cells that are still alive after the impaction of the graft which affects their vitality. The bone substitutes appear to be safe and very useful, particularly if applied in order to implement the omologous bone, which is still the most scaffolds used in this surgery. CONCLUSIONS. The systematic review of the literature has shown an important lack of clinical studies regarding the use of biotechnologies for prosthetic revisions. It is therefore difficult to draw guidelines that regulate the application, prospective randomized clinical studies are therefore needed to validate its effectiveness

INTRODUCTION. The hip arthroplasty implant is currently growing up both in orthopedic and trauma practice. This increases the frequency of prosthesis revision due to implant loosening often associated with periprosthetic osteolysis that determine the failure and lead to a loss of bone substance. Nowadays there are numerous biotechnologies seeking to join or substitute the autologous or omologous bone use. These biotechnologies (mesenchymal stromal cells, growth factors and bone substitutes) may be used in such situations, however, the literature doesn't offer class 1 clinical evidences in this field of application. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a literature review using the universally validated search engines in the biomedical field: PubMed / Medline, Google Scholar, Scopus, EMBASE. The keywords used were: “Growth Factors”, “Platelet Rich Plasma”, “OP-1”, “BMP”, “BMP-2”, “BMP-7”, “Demineralized Bone Matrix”, “Stem Cell”, “Bone Marrow”, “Scaffold”, “Bone Substitutes” were crossed with “hip”, “revision”, “replacement” / “arthroplasty”, “bone loss” / “osteolysis.”. RESULTS. The search led to 321 items, of these were considered relevant: as regards the growth factors 21 articles related to in vivo animal studies and 2 articles of human clinical use of BMPs and 1 single article on the use of PRP; as regards the mesenchymal stromal cells 2 items of application in animals; as regards the use of bone substitutes we have analyzed a review of this application. DISCUSSION. The use of biotechnologies in hip prosthetic revisions has produced conflicting results: autologous growth factors (PRP) have definitely been proven effective in maxillofacial surgery, in animal studies the results of BMPs are inconsistent with articles that validate their use and others that don't recommend it. Clinical application has demonstrated, today, the limited use of BMP-7 in revisions with even an increased risk of early re-mobilization, PRP appears to be rather effective only in the early stages of peri-prosthetic osteolysis. The mesenchymal cells can increase the chances of recovery and integration of the grafts but an important variable is the number of cells that are still alive after the impaction of the graft which affects their vitality. The bone substitutes appear to be safe and very useful, particularly if applied in order to implement the omologous bone, which is still the most scaffolds used in this surgery. CONCLUSIONS. The systematic review of the literature has shown an important lack of clinical studies regarding the use of biotechnologies for prosthetic revisions. It is therefore difficult to draw guidelines that regulate the application, prospective randomized clinical studies are therefore needed to validate its effectiveness

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting include autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly four types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately, we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting includes autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly 4 types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting include autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly 4 types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately, we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting include autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because they are present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute used was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly four types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair. The primary workhorses of bone grafting includes autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because it is present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs. The first bone graft substitute use was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly 4 types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval. As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential

Currently, there is no animal model in which to evaluate the underlying physiological processes leading to the heterotopic ossification (HO) which forms in most combat-related and blast wounds. We sought to reproduce the ossification that forms under these circumstances in a rat by emulating patterns of injury seen in patients with severe injuries resulting from blasts. We investigated whether exposure to blast overpressure increased the prevalence of HO after transfemoral amputation performed within the zone of injury. We exposed rats to a blast overpressure alone (BOP-CTL), crush injury and femoral fracture followed by amputation through the zone of injury (AMP-CTL) or a combination of these (BOP-AMP). The presence of HO was evaluated using radiographs, micro-CT and histology. HO developed in none of nine BOP-CTL, six of nine AMP-CTL, and in all 20 BOP-AMP rats. Exposure to blast overpressure increased the prevalence of HO.

This model may thus be used to elucidate cellular and molecular pathways of HO, the effect of varying intensities of blast overpressure, and to evaluate new means of prophylaxis and treatment of heterotopic ossification.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:572–6

Construction of a functional skeleton is accomplished through co-ordination of the developmental processes of chondrogenesis, osteogenesis, and synovial joint formation. Infants whose movement in utero is reduced or restricted and who subsequently suffer from joint dysplasia (including joint contractures) and thin hypo-mineralised bones, demonstrate that embryonic movement is crucial for appropriate skeletogenesis. This has been confirmed in mouse, chick, and zebrafish animal models, where reduced or eliminated movement consistently yields similar malformations and which provide the possibility of experimentation to uncover the precise disturbances and the mechanisms by which movement impacts molecular regulation. Molecular genetic studies have shown the important roles played by cell communication signalling pathways, namely Wnt, Hedgehog, and transforming growth factor-beta/bone morphogenetic protein. These pathways regulate cell behaviours such as proliferation and differentiation to control maturation of the skeletal elements, and are affected when movement is altered. Cell contacts to the extra-cellular matrix as well as the cytoskeleton offer a means of mechanotransduction which could integrate mechanical cues with genetic regulation. Indeed, expression of cytoskeletal genes has been shown to be affected by immobilisation. In addition to furthering our understanding of a fundamental aspect of cell control and differentiation during development, research in this area is applicable to the engineering of stable skeletal tissues from stem cells, which relies on an understanding of developmental mechanisms including genetic and physical criteria. A deeper understanding of how movement affects skeletogenesis therefore has broader implications for regenerative therapeutics for injury or disease, as well as for optimisation of physical therapy regimes for individuals affected by skeletal abnormalities.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:105–116