Bone marrow aspirate and bone marrow aspirate concentrate: Does the literature support use in long-bone nonunion and provide new insights into mechanism of action?

Abstract

Purpose To assess the use of bone marrow aspirate (BM) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) in the treatment of long-bone nonunion and to understand mechanism of action. Methods A systematic review of PubMed and EBSCOHost was completed to identify studies that investigated the use of BM or BMAC for the diagnosis of delayed union and/or nonunion of long-bone fractures. Studies of isolated bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) and use in non-long-bone fractures were excluded. Statistical analysis was confounded by heterogeneous fracture fixation methods, treatment history, and scaffold use. Results Our initial search yielded 430 publications, which was screened down to 25 studies. Successful treatment in aseptic nonunion was reported at 79–100% (BM) and 50–100% (BMAC). Septic nonunion rates were slightly better at 73–100% (BM) and 83.3–100% (BMAC). 18/24 studies report union rates > 80%. One study reports successful treatment of septic nonunion with BMAC and no antibiotics. A separate study reported a significant reduction in autograft reinfection rate when combined with BMAC (P = 0.009). Major adverse events include two deep infections at injection site and one case of heterotopic ossification. Most studies note transient mild donor site discomfort and potential injection site discomfort attributed to needle size. Conclusion The current literature pertaining to use of BM/BMAC for nonunion is extremely heterogeneous in terms of patient population and concomitant treatment modalities. While results are promising for use of BM/BMAC with other gold standard treatment methodologies, the literature requires additional Level I data to clarify the impact of role BM/BMAC in treating nonunion when used alone and in combination with other modalities. Level of evidence Level III.