Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38957270›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2024

An innovative intramedullary bone graft harvesting concept as a fundamental component of scaffold-guided bone regeneration: A preclinical

Markus Laubach, Buddhi Herath, Sinduja Suresh, Siamak Saifzadeh, Bronwin L Dargaville, Silvia Cometta, Victoria Schemenz, Marie-Luise Wille, Jacqui McGovern, Dietmar W Hutmacher and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Assessing Cardiopulmonary Safety of Intramedullary Bone Graft Harvesting: A Comparative Study of the RIA 2 System and the ARA Concept.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

12 authors.

Markus LaubachAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Buddhi HerathAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Sinduja SureshAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Siamak SaifzadehAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Bronwin L DargavilleCentre for Biomedical Technologies, School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Silvia ComettaCentre for Biomedical Technologies, School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Victoria SchemenzAbteilung für Zahnerhaltung und Präventivzahnmedizin CharitéCentrum 3 für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Marie-Luise WilleAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Jacqui McGovernCentre for Biomedical Technologies, School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
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.
Flavia Medeiros SaviAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Nathalie BockAustralian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The deployment of bone grafts (BGs) is critical to the success of scaffold-guided bone regeneration (SGBR) of large bone defects. It is thus critical to provide harvesting devices that maximize osteogenic capacity of the autograft while also minimizing graft damage during collection. As an alternative to the Reamer-Irrigator-Aspirator 2 (RIA 2) system - the gold standard for large-volume graft harvesting used in orthopaedic clinics today - a novel intramedullary BG harvesting concept has been preclinically introduced and referred to as the ARA (aspirator + reaming-aspiration) concept. The ARA concept uses aspiration of the intramedullary content, followed by medullary reaming-aspiration of the endosteal bone. This concept allows greater customization of BG harvesting conditions vis-à-vis the RIA 2 system. Following its successful Methods: We used 3D-printed, medical-grade polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite (mPCL-HA, wt 96 %:4 %) scaffolds with a Voronoi design, loaded with or without different sheep-harvested BGs and tested them in an ectopic bone formation rat model for up to 8 weeks. Results: Active bone regeneration was observed throughout the scaffold-BG constructs, particularly on the surface of the bone chips with endochondral bone formation, and highly vascularized tissue formed within the fully interconnected pore architecture. There were no differences between the BGs derived from the RIA 2 system and the ARA concept in new bone volume formation and in compression tests (Young's modulus, Conclusion: In conclusion, the ARA concept offers a promising alternative to the RIA 2 system for harvesting BGs to be clinically integrated into SGBR strategies. The translational potential of this article: Our results show that biodegradable composite scaffolds loaded with BGs from the novel intramedullary harvesting concept and the RIA 2 system have equivalent osteogenic capacity. Thus, the innovative, highly intuitive intramedullary harvesting concept offers a promising alternative to the RIA 2 system for harvesting bone grafts, which are an important component for the routine translation of SGBR concepts into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Bone graftBone regenerationIntramedullary harvestingPolycaprolactoneScaffoldVoronoi

Identifiers

PMID38957270
PMCPMC11215842

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.