4.5 Article

Building better bone: The weaving of biologic and engineering strategies for managing bone loss

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 1855-1864

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.23592

关键词

bone transport; critical bone loss; bone augmentation; bone graft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Segmental bone loss remains a challenging clinical problem for orthopaedic trauma surgeons. In addition to the missing bone itself, the local tissues (soft tissue, vascular) are often highly traumatized as well, resulting in a less than ideal environment for bone regeneration. As a result, attempts at limb salvage become a highly expensive endeavor, often requiring multiple operations and necessitating the use of every available strategy (autograft, allograft, bone graft substitution, Masquelet, bone transport, etc.) to achieve bony union. A cost-sensitive, functionally appropriate, and volumetrically adequate engineered substitute would be practicechanging for orthopaedic trauma surgeons and these patients with difficult clinical problems. In tissue engineering and bone regeneration fields, numerous research efforts continue to make progress toward new therapeutic interventions for segmental bone loss, including novel biomaterial development as well as cell-based strategies. Despite an ever-evolving literature base of these new therapeutic and engineered options, there remains a disconnect with the clinical practice, with very few translating into clinical use. A symposium entitled Building better bone: The weaving of biologic and engineering strategies for managing bone loss, was presented at the 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society Conference to further explore this engineering-clinical disconnect, by surveying basic, translational, and clinical researchers along with orthopaedic surgeons and proposing ideas for pushing the bar forward in the field of segmental bone loss. (C) 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据