Pathological assessment of periprosthetic tissues is important, not only for diagnosis, but also for understanding the pathobiology of implant failure. The host response to wear particle deposition in periprosthetic tissues is characterised by cell and tissue injury, and a reparative and inflammatory response in which there is an innate and adaptive immune response to the material components of implant wear. Physical and chemical characteristics of implant wear influence the nature of the response in periprosthetic tissues and account for the development of particular complications that lead to implant failure, such as osteolysis which leads to aseptic loosening, and soft-tissue necrosis/inflammation, which can result in pseudotumour formation. The innate response involves phagocytosis of implant-derived wear particles by macrophages; this is determined by pattern recognition receptors and results in expression of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors promoting inflammation and osteoclastogenesis; phagocytosed particles can also be cytotoxic and cause cell and tissue necrosis. The adaptive immune response to wear debris is characterised by the presence of lymphoid cells and most likely occurs as a result of a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to cell and tissue components altered by interaction with the material components of particulate wear, particularly metal ions released from cobalt-chrome wear particles. Cite this article: Professor N. A. Athanasou. The pathobiology and pathology of aseptic implant failure.
Stem cells are defined by their potential for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into numerous cell types, including cartilage and bone cells. Although basic laboratory studies demonstrate that cell therapies have strong potential for improvement in tissue healing and regeneration, there is little evidence in the scientific literature for many of the available cell formulations that are currently offered to patients. Numerous commercial entities and ‘regenerative medicine centres’ have aggressively marketed unproven cell therapies for a wide range of medical conditions, leading to sometimes indiscriminate use of these treatments, which has added to the confusion and unpredictable outcomes. The significant variability and heterogeneity in cell formulations between different individuals makes it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy. The ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue that are currently used differ substantially from cells that are processed and prepared under defined laboratory protocols. The term ‘stem cells’ should be reserved for laboratory-purified, culture-expanded cells. The number of cells in uncultured preparations that meet these defined criteria is estimated to be approximately one in 10 000 to 20 000 (0.005% to 0.01%) in native bone marrow and 1 in 2000 in adipose tissue. It is clear that more refined definitions of stem cells are required, as the lumping together of widely diverse progenitor cell types under the umbrella term ‘mesenchymal stem cells’ has created confusion among scientists, clinicians, regulators, and our patients. Validated methods need to be developed to measure and characterize the ‘critical quality attributes’ and biological activity of a specific cell formulation. It is certain that ‘one size does not fit all’ – different cell formulations, dosing schedules, and culturing parameters will likely be required based on the tissue being treated and the desired biological target. As an alternative to the use of exogenous cells, in the future we may be able to stimulate the intrinsic vascular stem cell niche that is known to exist in many tissues. The tremendous potential of cell therapy will only be realized with further basic, translational, and clinical research. Cite this article:
