Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37504836›Full record

ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2023

The Concept of Scaffold-Guided Bone Regeneration for the Treatment of Long Bone Defects: Current Clinical Application and Future Perspective.

Markus Laubach, Frank Hildebrand, Sinduja Suresh, Michael Wagels, Philipp Kobbe, Fabian Gilbert, Ulrich Kneser, Boris M Holzapfel, Dietmar W Hutmacher

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The road to the Pearl-String Technique: lessons learned from early IMT modifications using RIA autograft and cancellous allograft granules.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Markus LaubachAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3451-1445
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Sinduja SureshAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0462-7762
Michael WagelsDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia.
Philipp KobbeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Fabian GilbertDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Ulrich KneserDepartment of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, 67071 Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3402-2860
Boris M HolzapfelDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Dietmar W HutmacherAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5678-2134
Australian Research Council · AULMU Klinikum · DERWTH Aachen University · DEHeidelberg University · DEThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Feodor Lynen Research Fellowship awarded to Markus LaubachAustralian Research Council 180100008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment of bone defects remains a challenging clinical problem with high reintervention rates, morbidity, and resulting significant healthcare costs. Surgical techniques are constantly evolving, but outcomes can be influenced by several parameters, including the patient's age, comorbidities, systemic disorders, the anatomical location of the defect, and the surgeon's preference and experience. The most used therapeutic modalities for the regeneration of long bone defects include distraction osteogenesis (bone transport), free vascularized fibular grafts, the Masquelet technique, allograft, and (arthroplasty with) mega-prostheses. Over the past 25 years, three-dimensional (3D) printing, a breakthrough layer-by-layer manufacturing technology that produces final parts directly from 3D model data, has taken off and transformed the treatment of bone defects by enabling personalized therapies with highly porous 3D-printed implants tailored to the patient. Therefore, to reduce the morbidities and complications associated with current treatment regimens, efforts have been made in translational research toward 3D-printed scaffolds to facilitate bone regeneration. Three-dimensional printed scaffolds should not only provide osteoconductive surfaces for cell attachment and subsequent bone formation but also provide physical support and containment of bone graft material during the regeneration process, enhancing bone ingrowth, while simultaneously, orthopaedic implants supply mechanical strength with rigid, stable external and/or internal fixation. In this perspective review, we focus on elaborating on the history of bone defect treatment methods and assessing current treatment approaches as well as recent developments, including existing evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of 3D-printed scaffolds for bone defect regeneration. Furthermore, it is evident that the regulatory framework and organization and financing of evidence-based clinical trials remains very complex, and new challenges for non-biodegradable and biodegradable 3D-printed scaffolds for bone regeneration are emerging that have not yet been sufficiently addressed, such as guideline development for specific surgical indications, clinically feasible design concepts for needed multicentre international preclinical and clinical trials, the current medico-legal status, and reimbursement. These challenges underscore the need for intensive exchange and open and honest debate among leaders in the field. This goal can be addressed in a well-planned and focused stakeholder workshop on the topic of patient-specific 3D-printed scaffolds for long bone defect regeneration, as proposed in this perspective review.

Indexed as

3D printingadditive manufacturingaliphatic polyesterbone regenerationcompositeslarge volume bone defectspolycaprolactonescaffoldtitanium

Identifiers

PMID37504836
PMCPMC10381286
OpenAlexW4382582574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.