Comparison of amniotic membrane versus the induced membrane for bone regeneration in long bone segmental defects using calcium phosphate cement loaded with BMP-2

Thanks to its biological properties, the human amniotic membrane (HAM) combined with a bone substitute could be a single-step surgical alternative to the two-step Masquelet induced membrane (IM) technique for regeneration of critical bone defects. However, no study has directly compared these two membranes. We first designed a 3D-printed scaffold using calcium phosphate cement (CPC). We assessed its suitability in vitro to support human bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (hBMSCs) attachment and osteodifferentiation. We then performed a rat femoral critical size defect to compare the two-step IM technique with a single-step approach using the HAM. Five conditions were compared. Group 1 was left empty. Group 2 received the CPC scaffold loaded with rh-BMP2 (CPC/BMP2). Group 3 and 4 received the CPC/BMP2 scaffold covered with lyophilized or decellularized/lyophilized HAM. Group 5 underwent a two- step induced membrane procedure with insertion of a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacer followed by, after 4 weeks, its replacement with the CPC/BMP2 scaffold wrapped in the IM. Micro-CT and histomorphometric analysis were performed after six weeks. Results showed that the CPC scaffold supported the proliferation and osteodifferentiation of hBMSCs in vitro. In vivo, the CPC/BMP2 scaffold very efficiently induced bone formation and led to satisfactory healing of the femoral defect, in a single-step, without autograft or the need for any membrane covering. In this study, there was no difference between the two-step induced membrane procedure and a single step approach. However, the results indicated that none of the tested membranes further enhanced bone healing compared to the CPC/BMP2 group.

Automated summary

The study demonstrated that the combination of the human amniotic membrane with a bone substitute can effectively induce bone formation and achieve satisfactory healing of critical bone defects without the need for autograft or membrane covering. There was no significant difference between the two-step induced membrane procedure and the single-step approach, but the tested membranes did not enhance bone healing compared to the CPC/BMP2 group.