Critical-sized bone defects (CSBDs) represent a significant clinical challenge, stimulating researchers to seek new methods for successful bone reconstruction. The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) combined with tissue-engineered scaffolds have demonstrated improved bone regeneration in the treatment of CSBD in large preclinical animal models. A search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) focused on in vivo large animal studies identified 10 articles according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) in vivo large animal models with segmental bone defects; (2) treatment with tissue-engineered scaffolds combined with BMSCs; (3) the presence of a control group; and (4) a minimum of a histological analysis outcome. Animal research: reporting of in Vivo Experiments guidelines were used for quality assessment, and Systematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation's risk of bias tool was used to define internal validity. The results demonstrated that tissue-engineered scaffolds, either from autografts or allografts, when combined with BMSCs provide improved bone mineralization and bone formation, including a critical role in the remodeling phase of bone healing. BMSC-seeded scaffolds showed improved biomechanical properties and microarchitecture properties of the regenerated bone when compared with untreated and scaffold-alone groups. This review highlights the efficacy of tissue engineering strategies for the repair of extensive bone defects in preclinical large-animal models. In particular, the use of mesenchymal stem cells, combined with bioscaffolds, seems to be a successful method in comparison to cell-free scaffolds.
Impact statement
The combination of bone marrow stem cells with tissue-engineered scaffolds is an innovation that can bridge the gaps that still exist in treating CSBD, creating a more favorable environment for tissue healing. This systematic review gives insight into the current evidence for this innovation in improving bone regeneration of critical-sized bone segmental defects in large animal models. Moreover, challenges and future directions for translational implication are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ReichertJC, SaifzadehS, WullschlegerME, et al.The challenge of establishing preclinical models for segmental bone defect research. Biomaterials, 2009; 30(12):2149–2163; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.12.050
2.
de GirolamoL, RagniE, CucchiariniM, et al.Cells, soluble factors and matrix harmonically play the concert of allograft integration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2019; 27(6):1717–1725; doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5182-1
3.
WuAM, BisignanoC, JamesSL, et al.Global, regional, and national burden of bone fractures in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev, 2021; 2(9):e580–e592; doi: 10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00172-0
4.
GreenwaldAS, BodenSD, GoldbergVM, et al.Bone-graft substitutes: Facts, fictions, and applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001; 83-ASuppl 2 Pt 2:98–103; doi: 10.2106/00004623-200100022-00007
5.
FaourO, DimitriouR, CousinsCA, et al.The use of bone graft substitutes in large cancellous voids: Any specific needs?. Injury, 2011; 42Suppl 2:S87–S90; doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.020
6.
StanoviciJ, Le NailLR, BrennanMA, et al.Bone regeneration strategies with bone marrow stromal cells in orthopaedic surgery. Curr Res Transl Med, 2016; 64(2):83–90; doi: 10.1016/j.retram.2016.04.006
7.
EnnekingWF, MorrisJL. Human autologous cortical bone transplants. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1972; 87:28–35.
8.
MankinHJ, GebhardtMC, TomfordWW. The use of frozen cadaveric allografts in the management of patients with bone tumors of the extremities. Orthop Clin North Am, 1987; 18(2):275–289.
9.
MankinHJ, DoppeltSH, SullivanTR, et al.Osteoarticular and intercalary allograft transplantation in the management of malignant tumors of bone. Cancer, 1982; 50(4):613–630; doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19820815)50:4<613::aid-cncr2820500402>3.0.co;2-l
10.
PanagopoulosGN, MavrogenisAF, MauffreyC, et al.Intercalary reconstructions after bone tumor resections: A review of treatments. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2017; 27(6):737–746; doi: 10.1007/s00590-017-1985-x
11.
TaylorGI, MillerGD, HamFJ. The free vascularized bone graft. A clinical extension of microvascular techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1975; 55(5):533–544; doi: 10.1097/00006534-197505000-00002
12.
TaylorGI, WatsonN. One-stage repair of compound leg defects with free, revascularized flaps of groin skin and iliac bone. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1978; 61(4):494–506; doi: 10.1097/00006534-197804000-00002
13.
FeltriP, SolaroL, Di MartinoA, et al.Union, complication, reintervention and failure rates of surgical techniques for large diaphyseal defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep, 2022; 12(1):9098; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12140-5
14.
BerisAE, LykissasMG, KorompiliasAV, et al.Vascularized fibula transfer for lower limb reconstruction. Microsurgery, 2011; 31(3):205–211; doi: 10.1002/micr.20841
15.
TsuchiyaH, TomitaK, ShinokawaY, et al.The Ilizarov method in the management of giant-cell tumours of the proximal tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1996; 78(2):264–269.
16.
IlizarovGA, LedyaevVI. The replacement of long tubular bone defects by lengthening distraction osteotomy of one of the fragments. 1969. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1992; 280:7–10.
17.
LuY, MaT, RenC, et al.Treatment of segmental tibial defects by bone transport with circular external fixation and a locking plate. J Int Med Res, 2020; 48(4):300060520920407; doi: 10.1177/0300060520920407
18.
OhCW, SongHR, RohJY, et al.Bone transport over an intramedullary nail for reconstruction of long bone defects in tibia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2008; 128(8):801–808; doi: 10.1007/s00402-007-0491-8
19.
MeselhyMA, SingerMS, HalawaAM, et al.Gradual fibular transfer by Ilizarov external fixator in post-traumatic and post-infection large tibial bone defects. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2018; 138(5):653–660; doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-2895-z
20.
LiC, LvH, DuY, et al.Biologically modified implantation as therapeutic bioabsorbable materials for bone defect repair. Regen Ther, 2022; 19:9–23; doi: 10.1016/j.reth.2021.12.004
21.
KhalafAT, WeiY, WanJ, et al.Bone tissue engineering through 3D bioprinting of bioceramic scaffolds: A review and update. Life (Basel), 2022; 12(6); doi: 10.3390/life12060903
22.
FröhlichM, GraysonWL, WanLQ, et al.Tissue engineered bone grafts: Biological requirements, tissue culture and clinical relevance. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther, 2008; 3(4):254–264; doi: 10.2174/157488808786733962
23.
BaumannCA, CristBD. Nickel allergy to orthopaedic implants: A review and case series. J Clin Orthop Trauma, 2020; 11(Suppl 4):S596–S603; doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.02.008
24.
MombelliA, HashimD, CioncaN. What is the impact of titanium particles and biocorrosion on implant survival and complications? A critical review. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018; 29Suppl 18:37–53; doi: 10.1111/clr.13305
25.
WangH, SuK, SuL, et al.Comparison of 3D-printed porous tantalum and titanium scaffolds on osteointegration and osteogenesis. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 104:109908; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109908
26.
LiaoC, LiY, TjongSC. Polyetheretherketone and its composites for bone replacement and regeneration. Polymers (Basel), 2020; 12(12); doi: 10.3390/polym12122858
27.
HussainM, NaqviRA, AbbasN, et al.Ultra-high-molecular-weight-polyethylene (UHMWPE) as a promising polymer material for biomedical applications: A concise review. Polymers (Basel), 2020; 12(2); doi: 10.3390/polym12020323
28.
PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021; 372:n71; doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
29.
MillerSA, ForrestJL. Enhancing your practice through evidence-based decision making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions. J Evid Based Dent Pract, 2001; 1(2):136–141; doi: 10.1016/S1532-3382(01)70024-3
30.
KilkennyC, BrowneWJ, CuthillIC, et al.Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2010; 8(6):e1000412; doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
31.
SchwarzF, IglhautG, BeckerJ. Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines. J Clin Periodontol, 2012; 39Suppl 12:63–72; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01838.x
32.
MonteiroJLGC, GuastaldiFPS, TroulisMJ, et al.Induction, Treatment, and Prevention of Temporomandibular Joint Ankylosis-A Systematic Review of Comparative Animal Studies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021; 79(1):109–132.e6; doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.07.018
33.
HooijmansCR, RoversMM, de VriesRB, et al.SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014; 14:43; doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43
34.
BernerA, HenkelJ, WoodruffMA, et al.Delayed minimally invasive injection of allogenic bone marrow stromal cell sheets regenerates large bone defects in an ovine preclinical animal model. Stem Cells Transl Med, 2015; 4(5):503–512; doi: 10.5966/sctm.2014-0244
35.
BernerA, ReichertJC, WoodruffMA, et al.Autologous vs. allogenic mesenchymal progenitor cells for the reconstruction of critical sized segmental tibial bone defects in aged sheep. Acta Biomater, 2013; 9(8):7874–7884.
36.
SmithJO, TaytonER, KhanF, et al.Large animal in vivo evaluation of a binary blend polymer scaffold for skeletal tissue-engineering strategies; translational issues. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2017; 11(4):1065–1076; doi: 10.1002/term.2007
37.
SzivekJA, GonzalesDA, WojtanowskiAM, et al.Mesenchymal stem cell seeded, biomimetic 3D printed scaffolds induce complete bridging of femoral critical sized defects. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2019; 107(2):242–252; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34115
38.
ViateauV, GuilleminG, BoussonV, et al.Long-bone critical-size defects treated with tissue-engineered grafts: A study on sheep. J Orthop Res, 2007; 25(6):741–749; doi: 10.1002/jor.20352
39.
DaiKR, XuXL, TangTT, et al.Repairing of goat tibial bone defects with BMP-2 gene-modified tissue-engineered bone. Calcif Tissue Int, 2005; 77(1):55–61; doi: 10.1007/s00223-004-0095-z
40.
GardelL, AfonsoM, FriasC, et al.Assessing the repair of critical size bone defects performed in a goat tibia model using tissue-engineered constructs cultured in a bidirectional flow perfusion bioreactor. J Biomater Appl, 2014; 29(2):172–185; doi: 10.1177/0885328213519351
41.
LiuGP, LiZ, ZhangWJ, et al.Repair of goat tibial defects with bone marrow stromal cells and ss-tricalcium phosphate. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2008; 19(6):2367–2376.
42.
XuJZ, QinH, WangXQ, et al.Repair of large segmental bone defects using bone marrow stromal cells with demineralized bone matrix. Orthop Surg, 2009; 1(1):34–41; doi: 10.1111/j.2757-7861.2008.00007.x
43.
HuangJ, ZhangL, ChuB, et al.Repair of bone defect in caprine tibia using a laminated scaffold with bone marrow stromal cells loaded poly (L-lactic acid)/β-tricalcium phosphate. Artif Organs, 2011; 35(1):49–57; doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01042.x
44.
DimitriouR, TsiridisE, GiannoudisPV. Current concepts of molecular aspects of bone healing. Injury, 2005; 36(12):1392–1404; doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.019
45.
GardelLS, SerraLA, ReisRL, et al.Use of perfusion bioreactors and large animal models for long bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2014; 20(2):126–146; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2013.0010
46.
UliviM, MeroniV, ViganòM, et al.Micro-fragmented adipose tissue (mFAT) associated with arthroscopic debridement provides functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2022; 1–12; doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07101-4
47.
RandelliPS, CucchiD, FossatiC, et al.Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair augmentation with autologous microfragmented lipoaspirate tissue is safe and effectively improves short-term clinical and functional results: A prospective randomized controlled trial with 24-month follow-up. Am J Sports Med, 2022; 50(5):1344–1357; doi: 10.1177/03635465221083324
48.
KagamiH, AgataH, TojoA. Bone marrow stromal cells (bone marrow-derived multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells) for bone tissue engineering: Basic science to clinical translation. Int J Biochem Cell Biol, 2011; 43(3):286–289; doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2010.12.006
49.
BernerA, ReichertJC, MüllerMB, et al.Treatment of long bone defects and non-unions: From research to clinical practice. Cell Tissue Res, 2012; 347(3):501–519; doi: 10.1007/s00441-011-1184-8
50.
NiemeyerP, SchönbergerTS, HahnJ, et al.Xenogenic transplantation of human mesenchymal stem cells in a critical size defect of the sheep tibia for bone regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A, 2010; 16(1):33–43; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2009.0190
51.
NishihoriT, PerkinsJ, KimJ, et al.Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis: A 10-year experience at single institution. Am J Hematol, 2010; 85(11):904–907; doi: 10.1002/ajh.21851
52.
KirankumarS, GurusamyN, RajasinghS, et al.Modern approaches on stem cells and scaffolding technology for osteogenic differentiation and regeneration. Exp Biol Med (Maywood), 2022; 247(5):433–445; doi: 10.1177/15353702211052927
53.
LeQ, MadhuV, HartJM, et al.Current evidence on potential of adipose derived stem cells to enhance bone regeneration and future projection. World J Stem Cells, 2021; 13(9):1248–1277; doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v13.i9.1248
54.
LuoD, PengS, LiQ, et al.Methyltransferase-like 3 modulates osteogenic differentiation of adipose-derived stem cells in osteoporotic rats. J Gene Med, 2023;e3481; doi: 10.1002/jgm.3481
55.
CalisM, IrmakG, DemirtaşTT, et al.Photobiomodulation combined with adipose-derived stem cells encapsulated in methacrylated gelatin hydrogels enhances in vivo bone regeneration. Lasers Med Sci, 2022; 37(1):595–606; doi: 10.1007/s10103-021-03308-y
56.
MuthuS, PatilSC, JeyaramanN, et al.Comparative effectiveness of adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in the management of knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis. World J Orthop, 2023; 14(1):23–41; doi: 10.5312/wjo.v14.i1.23
57.
Mohamed-AhmedS, FristadI, LieSA, et al.Adipose-derived and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells: A donor-matched comparison. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2018; 9(1):168; doi: 10.1186/s13287-018-0914-1
58.
Al MadhounA, SindhuS, HaddadD, et al.Dental pulp stem cells derived from adult human third molar tooth: A brief review. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2021; 9:717624; doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.717624
59.
GronthosS, MankaniM, BrahimJ, et al.Postnatal human dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) in vitro and in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2000; 97(25):13625–13630; doi: 10.1073/pnas.240309797
60.
TatulloM, MarrelliM, ShakesheffKM, et al.Dental pulp stem cells: Function, isolation and applications in regenerative medicine. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2015; 9(11):1205–1216; doi: 10.1002/term.1899
61.
AurrekoetxeaM, Garcia-GallasteguiP, IrastorzaI, et al.Dental pulp stem cells as a multifaceted tool for bioengineering and the regeneration of craniomaxillofacial tissues. Front Physiol, 2015; 6:289; doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00289
62.
YamadaY, Nakamura-YamadaS, KonokiR, et al.Promising advances in clinical trials of dental tissue-derived cell-based regenerative medicine. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2020; 11(1):175; doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-01683-x
63.
d'AquinoR, GrazianoA, SampaolesiM, et al.Human postnatal dental pulp cells co-differentiate into osteoblasts and endotheliocytes: A pivotal synergy leading to adult bone tissue formation. Cell Death Differ, 2007; 14(6):1162–1171; doi: 10.1038/sj.cdd.4402121
64.
LiuHC, E LL, WangDS, et al.Reconstruction of alveolar bone defects using bone morphogenetic protein 2 mediated rabbit dental pulp stem cells seeded on nano-hydroxyapatite/collagen/poly(L-lactide). Tissue Eng Part A, 2011; 17(19–20):2417–2433; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2010.0620
65.
CavalcantiBN, ZeitlinBD, NörJE. A hydrogel scaffold that maintains viability and supports differentiation of dental pulp stem cells. Dent Mater, 2013; 29(1):97–102; doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.08.002
66.
KonopnickiS, SharafB, ResnickC, et al.Tissue-engineered bone with 3-dimensionally printed β-tricalcium phosphate and polycaprolactone scaffolds and early implantation: An in vivo pilot study in a porcine mandible model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015; 73(5):1016.e1–e1016.e11; doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.021
67.
BhumiratanaS, BernhardJC, AlfiDM, et al.Tissue-engineered autologous grafts for facial bone reconstruction. Sci Transl Med, 2016; 8(343):343ra83; doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad5904
68.
ProbstFA, FliefelR, BurianE, et al.Bone regeneration of minipig mandibular defect by adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells seeded tri-calcium phosphate-poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1):2062; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59038-8
69.
LoweB, GuastaldiF, OttensmeyerM, et al.Tissue-engineered bone using three-dimensionally fabricated constructs for reconstruction of large bicortical mandibular defect in porcine model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019; 48:158; doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.489
70.
JohnsonZM, YuanY, LiX, et al.Mesenchymal stem cells and three-dimensional-osteoconductive scaffold regenerate calvarial bone in critical size defects in swine. Stem Cells Transl Med, 2021; 10(8):1170–1183; doi: 10.1002/sctm.20-0534
71.
KeatingJF, SimpsonAH, RobinsonCM. The management of fractures with bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2005; 87(2):142–150; doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.87b2.15874
