Summary: Bone grafts are the second most common tissue transplanted in the United States, and they are an essential treatment tool in the field of acute and reconstructive traumatic orthopaedic surgery. Available in cancellous, cortical, or bone marrow aspirate form, autogenous bone graft is regarded as the gold standard in the treatment of posttraumatic conditions such as fracture, delayed union, and nonunion. However, drawbacks including donor-site morbidity and limited quantity of graft available for harvest make autograft a less-than-ideal option for certain patient populations. Advancements in allograft and bone graft substitutes in the past decade have created viable alternatives that circumvent some of the weak points of autografts. Allograft is a favorable alternative for its convenience, abundance, and lack of procurement-related patient morbidity. Options include structural, particulate, and demineralized bone matrix form. Commonly used bone graft substitutes include calcium phosphate and calcium sulfate synthetics—these grafts provide their own benefits in structural support and availability. In addition, different growth factors including bone morphogenic proteins can augment the healing process of bony defects treated with grafts. Autograft, allograft, and bone graft substitutes all possess their own varying degrees of osteogenic, osteoconductive, and osteoinductive properties that make them better suited for different procedures. It is the purpose of this review to characterize these properties and present clinical evidence supporting their indications for use in the hopes of better elucidating treatment options for patients requiring bone grafting in an orthopaedic trauma setting.

Bone fractures and segmental bone defects are a significant source of patient morbidity and place a staggering economic burden on the healthcare system. The annual cost of treating bone defects in the US has been estimated to be $5 billion, while enormous costs are spent on bone grafts for bone injuries, tumors, and other pathologies associated with defective fracture healing. Autologous bone grafts represent the gold standard for the treatment of bone defects. However, they are associated with variable clinical outcomes, postsurgical morbidity, especially at the donor site, and increased surgical costs. In an effort to circumvent these limitations, tissue engineering and cell-based therapies have been proposed as alternatives to induce and promote bone repair. This review focuses on the recent advances in bone tissue engineering (BTE), specifically looking at its role in treating delayed fracture healing (non-unions) and the resulting segmental bone defects. Herein we discuss: (1) the processes of endochondral and intramembranous bone formation; (2) the role of stem cells, looking specifically at mesenchymal (MSC), embryonic (ESC), and induced pluripotent (iPSC) stem cells as viable building blocks to engineer bone implants; (3) the biomaterials used to direct tissue growth, with a focus on ceramic, biodegradable polymers, and composite materials; (4) the growth factors and molecular signals used to induce differentiation of stem cells into the osteoblastic lineage, which ultimately leads to active bone formation; and (5) the mechanical stimulation protocols used to maintain the integrity of the bone repair and their role in successful cell engraftment. Finally, a couple clinical scenarios are presented (non-unions and avascular necrosis—AVN), to illustrate how novel cell-based therapy approaches can be used. A thorough understanding of tissue engineering and cell-based therapies may allow for better incorporation of these potential therapeutic approaches in bone defects allowing for proper bone repair and regeneration.

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to assess the impact of certain demographics, social media usage, and physician review website variables for spine surgeons across Healthgrades.com (Healthgrades), Vitals.com (Vitals), and Google.com (Google).METHODSThrough a directory of registered North American Spine Society (NASS) physicians, we identified spine surgeons practicing in Texas (107 neurosurgery trained, 192 orthopedic trained). Three physician rating websites (Healthgrades, Vitals, Google) were accessed to obtain surgeon demographics, training history, practice setting, number of ratings/reviews, and overall score (January 2, 2018–January 16, 2018). Using only the first 10 search results from Google.com, we then identified whether the surgeon had a website presence or an accessible social media account on Facebook, Twitter, and/or Instagram.RESULTSPhysicians with either a personal or institutional website had a higher overall rating on Healthgrades compared to those who did not have a website (p < 0.01). Nearly all spine surgeons had a personal or institutional website (90.3%), and at least 1 accessible social media account was recorded for 43.5% of the spine surgeons in our study cohort (39.5% Facebook, 10.4% Twitter, 2.7% Instagram). Social media presence was not significantly associated with overall ratings across all 3 sites, but it did significantly correlate with more comments on Healthgrades. In multivariable analysis, increasing surgeon age was significantly associated with a lower overall rating across all 3 review sites (p < 0.05). Neurosurgeons had higher overall ratings on Vitals (p = 0.04). Longer wait times were significantly associated with a lower overall rating on Healthgrades (p < 0.0001). Overall ratings from all 3 websites correlated significantly with each other, indicating agreement between physician ratings across different platforms.CONCLUSIONSLonger wait times, increasing physician age, and the absence of a website are indicative of lower online review scores for spine surgeons. Neurosurgery training correlated with a higher overall review score on Vitals. Having an accessible social media account does not appear to influence scores, but it is correlated with increased patient feedback on Healthgrades. Identification of ways to optimize patients’ perception of care are important in the future of performance-based medicine.

No abstract

No abstract