Aims. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, to establish whether differences arise in clinical outcomes between autologous and synthetic bone grafts in the operative management of tibial plateau fractures. Methods. A structured search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the online archives of Bone & Joint Publishing, and CENTRAL databases from inception until 28 July 2021 was performed. Randomized, controlled, clinical trials that compared autologous and synthetic bone grafts in tibial plateau fractures were included. Preclinical studies, clinical studies in paediatric patients, pathological fractures, fracture nonunion, or chondral defects were excluded. Outcome data were assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) framework and synthesized in random-effect meta-analysis. The Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidance was followed throughout. Results. Six studies involving 353 fractures were identified from 3,078 records. Following ROB2 assessment, five studies (representing 338 fractures) were appropriate for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes showed non-significant reductions in articular depression at immediate postoperative (mean difference -0.45 mm, p = 0.25, 95%confidence interval (CI) -1.21 to 0.31, I. 2. = 0%) and long-term (> six months, standard mean difference -0.56, p = 0.09, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.08, I. 2. = 73%) follow-up in synthetic bone grafts. Secondary outcomes included mechanical alignment, limb functionality, and defect site pain at long-term follow-up, perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, occurrence of surgical site infections, and secondary surgery. Mean blood loss was lower (90.08 ml, p < 0.001, 95% CI 41.49 to 138.67) and surgery was shorter (16.17 minutes, p = 0.04, 95% CI 0.39 to 31.94) in synthetic treatment groups. All other secondary measures were statistically comparable. Conclusion. All studies reported similar methodologies and patient populations; however, imprecision may have arisen through performance variation. These findings supersede previous literature and indicate that, despite perceived biological advantages, autologous bone grafting does not demonstrate superiority to synthetic grafts. When selecting a void filler, surgeons should consider patient comorbidity, environmental and societal factors in provision, and perioperative and postoperative care provision. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):218–228

Objectives

Deep bone and joint infections (DBJI) are directly intertwined with health, demographic change towards an elderly population, and wellbeing.

The elderly human population is more prone to acquire infections, and the consequences such as pain, reduced quality of life, morbidity, absence from work and premature retirement due to disability place significant burdens on already strained healthcare systems and societal budgets.

DBJIs are less responsive to systemic antibiotics because of poor vascular perfusion in necrotic bone, large bone defects and persistent biofilm-based infection. Emerging bacterial resistance poses a major threat and new innovative treatment modalities are urgently needed to curb its current trajectory.

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.