Aims. We wanted to evaluate the effects of a bone anabolic agent (bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2)) on an anti-catabolic background (systemic or local zoledronate) on fixation of allografted revision implants. Methods. An established allografted revision protocol was implemented bilaterally into the stifle joints of 24 canines. At revision surgery, each animal received one BMP-2 (5 µg) functionalized implant, and one raw implant. One group (12 animals) received bone graft impregnated with zoledronate (0.005 mg/ml) before impaction. The other group (12 animals) received untreated bone graft and systemic zoledronate (0.1 mg/kg) ten and 20 days after revision surgery. Animals were observed for an additional four weeks before euthanasia. Results. No difference was detected on mechanical implant fixation (load to failure, stiffness, energy) between local or systemic zoledronate. Addition of BMP-2 had no effect on implant fixation. In the histomorphometric evaluation, implants with local zoledronate had more area of new bone on the implant surface (53%, p = 0.025) and higher volume of allograft (65%, p = 0.007), whereas implants in animals with systemic zoledronate had the highest volume of new bone (34%, p = 0.003). Systemic zoledronate with BMP-2 decreased volume of allograft by 47% (p = 0.017). Conclusion. Local and systemic zoledronate treatment protects bone at different stages of maturity; local zoledronate protects the allograft from resorption and systemic zoledronate protects newly formed bone from resorption. BMP-2 in the dose evaluated with experimental revision implants was not beneficial, since it significantly increased allograft resorption without a significant compensating anabolic effect. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):488–497

Objectives

Long bone defects often require surgical intervention for functional restoration. The ‘gold standard’ treatment is autologous bone graft (ABG), usually from the patient’s iliac crest. However, autograft is plagued by complications including limited supply, donor site morbidity, and the need for an additional surgery. Thus, alternative therapies are being actively investigated. Autologous bone marrow (BM) is considered as a candidate due to the presence of both endogenous reparative cells and growth factors. We aimed to compare the therapeutic potentials of autologous bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and ABG, which has not previously been done.

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.