Bone regeneration and repair are crucial to ambulation and quality of life. Factors such as poor general health, serious medical comorbidities, chronic inflammation, and ageing can lead to delayed healing and nonunion of fractures, and persistent bone defects. Bioengineering strategies to heal bone often involve grafting of autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) with biocompatible scaffolds. While BMAC shows promise, variability in its efficacy exists due to discrepancies in MSC concentration and robustness, and immune cell composition. Understanding the mechanisms by which macrophages and lymphocytes – the main cellular components in BMAC – interact with MSCs could suggest novel strategies to enhance bone healing. Macrophages are polarized into pro-inflammatory (M1) or anti-inflammatory (M2) phenotypes, and influence cell metabolism and tissue regeneration via the secretion of cytokines and other factors. T cells, especially helper T1 (Th1) and Th17, promote inflammation and osteoclastogenesis, whereas Th2 and regulatory T (Treg) cells have anti-inflammatory pro-reconstructive effects, thereby supporting osteogenesis. Crosstalk among macrophages, T cells, and MSCs affects the bone microenvironment and regulates the local immune response. Manipulating the proportion and interactions of these cells presents an opportunity to alter the local regenerative capacity of bone, which potentially could enhance clinical outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):462–473.

The December 2022 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Anterior approach for acetabular fractures using anatomical plates; Masquelet–Ilizarov for the management of bone loss post debridement of infected tibial nonunion; Total hip arthroplasty – better results after low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture in young patients; Unreamed intramedullary nailing versus external fixation for the treatment of open tibial shaft fractures in Uganda: a randomized clinical trial; The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study: the management of open fracture care in the UK; Cost-utility analysis of cemented hemiarthroplasty versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty; Unstable ankle fractures: fibular nail fixation compared to open reduction and internal fixation; Long-term outcomes of randomized clinical trials: wrist and calcaneus; ‘HeFT’y follow-up of the UK Heel Fracture Trial.

During the last decades, several research groups have used bisphosphonates for local application to counteract secondary bone resorption after bone grafting, to improve implant fixation or to control bone resorption caused by bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). We focused on zoledronate (a bisphosphonate) due to its greater antiresorptive potential over other bisphosphonates. Recently, it has become obvious that the carrier is of importance to modulate the concentration and elution profile of the zoledronic acid locally. Incorporating one fifth of the recommended systemic dose of zoledronate with different apatite matrices and types of bone defects has been shown to enhance bone regeneration significantly in vivo. We expect the local delivery of zoledronate to overcome the limitations and side effects associated with systemic usage; however, we need to know more about the bioavailability and the biological effects. The local use of BMP-2 and zoledronate as a combination has a proven additional effect on bone regeneration. This review focuses primarily on the local use of zoledronate alone, or in combination with bone anabolic factors, in various preclinical models mimicking different orthopaedic conditions.

Cite this article: I. Qayoom, D. B. Raina, A. Širka, Š. Tarasevičius, M. Tägil, A. Kumar, L. Lidgren. Anabolic and antiresorptive actions of locally delivered bisphosphonates for bone repair: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:548–560. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0015.R2.

Large bone defects remain a tremendous clinical challenge. There is growing evidence in support of treatment strategies that direct defect repair through an endochondral route, involving a cartilage intermediate. While culture-expanded stem/progenitor cells are being evaluated for this purpose, these cells would compete with endogenous repair cells for limited oxygen and nutrients within ischaemic defects. Alternatively, it may be possible to employ extracellular vesicles (EVs) secreted by culture-expanded cells for overcoming key bottlenecks to endochondral repair, such as defect vascularization, chondrogenesis, and osseous remodelling. While mesenchymal stromal/stem cells are a promising source of therapeutic EVs, other donor cells should also be considered. The efficacy of an EV-based therapeutic will likely depend on the design of companion scaffolds for controlled delivery to specific target cells. Ultimately, the knowledge gained from studies of EVs could one day inform the long-term development of synthetic, engineered nanovesicles. In the meantime, EVs harnessed from in vitro cell culture have near-term promise for use in bone regenerative medicine. This narrative review presents a rationale for using EVs to improve the repair of large bone defects, highlights promising cell sources and likely therapeutic targets for directing repair through an endochondral pathway, and discusses current barriers to clinical translation.

Cite this article: E. Ferreira, R. M. Porter. Harnessing extracellular vesicles to direct endochondral repair of large bone defects. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:263–273. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2018-0006.

Despite its intrinsic ability to regenerate form and function after injury, bone tissue can be challenged by a multitude of pathological conditions. While innovative approaches have helped to unravel the cascades of bone healing, this knowledge has so far not improved the clinical outcomes of bone defect treatment. Recent findings have allowed us to gain in-depth knowledge about the physiological conditions and biological principles of bone regeneration. Now it is time to transfer the lessons learned from bone healing to the challenging scenarios in defects and employ innovative technologies to enable biomaterial-based strategies for bone defect healing. This review aims to provide an overview on endogenous cascades of bone material formation and how these are transferred to new perspectives in biomaterial-driven approaches in bone regeneration.

Cite this article: T. Winkler, F. A. Sass, G. N. Duda, K. Schmidt-Bleek. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering: The unsolved challenge. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:232–243. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.73.BJR-2017-0270.R1.

Objectives

To compare the therapeutic potential of tissue-engineered constructs (TECs) combining mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and coral granules from either Acropora or Porites to repair large bone defects.

The October 2012 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: which patients die from pelvic ring fractures; monolateral distraction osteogenesis; surgical management of pelvic and peroneal blast injuries; weekend warriors at risk of going AWOL; early experience with the locking attachment plate; and fibula nailing - an alternate, and viable technique.

We used interconnected porous calcium hydroxyapatite ceramic to bridge a rabbit ulnar defect. Two weeks after inducing the defect we percutaneously injected rabbit bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells labelled with ferumoxide. The contribution of an external magnetic targeting system to attract these cells into the ceramic and their effect on subsequent bone formation were evaluated.

This technique significantly facilitated the infiltration of ferumoxide-labelled cells into ceramic and significantly contributed to the enhancement of bone formation even in the chronic phase. As such, it is potentially of clinical use to treat fractures, bone defects, delayed union and nonunion.