Scaffolds for tendon and ligament repair: review of the efficacy of commercial products

Driven by market demand, many biological and synthetic scaffolds have been developed during the last 15 years. Both positive and negative results have been reported in clinical applications for tendon and ligament repair. To obtain data for this review, multiple electronic databases were used (e.g., Pubmed and ScienceDirect), as well as the US FDA website and the reference lists from clinical trials, review articles and company reports, in order to identify studies relating to the use of these commercial scaffolds for tendon and ligament repair. The commercial names of each scaffold and the keywords 'tendon' and 'ligament' were used as the search terms. Initially, 378 articles were identified. Of these, 47 were clinical studies and the others were reviews, editorials, commentaries, animal studies or related to applications other than tendons and ligaments. The outcomes were reviewed in 47 reports (six on Restorer (TM), eight on Graftjacket (R), four on Zimmer (R), one on TissueMend (R), five on Gore-Tex (R), six on Lars (R), 18 on Leeds-Keio (R) and one study used both Restore and Graftjacket). The advantages, disadvantages and future perspectives regarding the use of commercial scaffolds for tendon and ligament treatment are discussed. Both biological and synthetic scaffolds can cause adverse events such as noninfectious effusion and synovitis, which result in the failure of surgery. Future improvements should focus on both mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Nanoscaffold manufactured using electrospinning technology may provide great improvement in future practice.