Alphonse Laveran (1845–1922): Discoverer of the Malarial Parasite and Nobel Laureate, 1907

E. Nye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/096777200201000205

2002-05-01

Journal of Medical Biography

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

FDA Regulatory Pathways for Knee Cartilage Repair Products

David W. Levine,Laura Mondano,Michael Halpin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JSA.0b013e31818cdb97

2019-10-04

Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review

Abstract:Over the past 2 decades there has been significant progress in the treatment of articular cartilage pathology with the introduction of cell biology, tissue engineering, and biomaterials to address long standing challenges in this debilitating condition. However, cell therapies and products combining cells, other biologics, devices, and/or drugs do not easily fit within traditional regulatory frameworks of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or agencies outside the United States. Regulations have evolved to specifically address these types of products in terms of their unique scientific and clinical issues. This paper reviews the characteristics of cell and combination products that distinguish them from more traditional medical devices and drugs, FDA regulatory pathways for marketing approval of these new types of products, and the implications of these regulations for orthopedic product development and practice.

sport sciences
Regulation of orthopaedic devices: Future implications for research and innovation

Claire A Donnelley,Vincent J Devlin,Mitchel B Harris,Robert A Poggie,Roy W Sanders,Saam Morshed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000101

2021-04-15

Abstract:The conception-to-market development of orthopaedic devices occurs across the total product life cycle including device design and preclinical testing, clinical investigations to support marketing applications, and monitoring of device performance after market introduction. This process involves industry, regulatory agencies, health care providers, engineers, scientists, and patients. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating medical devices in the United States, and uses a 3-tier classification system based on the level of control necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Classification directs the required regulatory pathway and premarket submission type. Variations in global regulations, particularly between the United States, European Economic Area (EEA), and the United Kingdom (UK), may impact industry response to orthopaedic device development. Changing device innovation and reimbursement models have led to the consolidation of market share among larger companies. Although larger companies are better able to cope with more rigorous regulatory requirements, this leads to decreased competition and increased upward price pressure. To assist with the complex regulatory processes, the FDA offers pre-submission assistance as an opportunity for early collaboration and discussion about the medical device or device-led combination product submissions. Orthopaedic organizations, such as the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), may assist in postmarket device surveillance through the coordinated development and maintenance of clinical data registries. Such registries can longitudinally follow patients with a specific orthopaedic pathology or device usage, and monitor outcomes towards improvements in next-generation device development. As technology evolves, the nexus of regulation, industry, and patient outcome monitoring will continue to support safe and effective device innovation.
Thermal Spray Coatings on Orthopedic Devices: When and How the FDA Reviews Your Coatings

Limin Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11666-018-0759-2

IF: 2.839

2018-09-20

Journal of Thermal Spray Technology

Abstract:Thermal spray coatings have been commonly applied on medical devices for various reasons, e.g., surface roughening, biological fixation, and similarity of chemical composition to bone minerals. Generally, to introduce a thermal spray-coated device to the US market, a premarket review of the coated device is necessary by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This article aims to improve understanding regarding FDA review of thermal spray coatings in orthopedic medical device marketing applications and expectations for information to be submitted as part of this process. While different thermal spray technologies and materials have been used for coatings on medical devices, thermal spray coatings often seen by the FDA on orthopedic devices include plasma-sprayed titanium (Ti) coatings and hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings as well as Ti/HA dual coatings. The coated devices are mostly metals (e.g., Ti alloy, cobalt-chromium alloy, stainless steel alloys) and some polymers (e.g., polyetheretherketone). The FDA does not clear or approve individual coatings or materials; rather, coatings and materials are evaluated as part of the final, finished medical device in the context of the specific device technological characteristics and intended use. The FDA has two current guidance documents for orthopedic implants with modified metallic surfaces and hydroxyapatite coatings, which outline the FDA’s recommendations for full characterization and testing of these two types of coatings, respectively. Additionally, the standards organizations (e.g., ISO and ASTM) have developed many materials and testing standards for these coatings, some of which are recognized by the FDA. It is helpful that the coating companies reference these standards for appropriate material/coating specifications, testing methods, and acceptance criteria. Depending on the intended use of the coated device, it is important that coating properties also address some items specific to that device type. Additionally, the impact of cleaning, sterilization, and packaging/shelf-life processes on the coating properties is also considered to ensure that the coated device is safe for its intended use.

materials science, coatings & films
The 2020 NBA Orthobiologics Consensus Statement

Brian J. Cole,Ron Gilat,John DiFiori,Scott A. Rodeo,Asheesh Bedi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211002296

IF: 2.6

2021-05-01

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:This 2020 NBA Orthobiologics Consensus Statement provides a concise summary of available literature and practical clinical guidelines for team physicians and players. We recognize that orthobiologic injections are a generally safe treatment modality with a significant potential to reduce pain and expedite early return to play in specific musculoskeletal injuries. The use of orthobiologics in sports medicine to safely reduce time loss and reinjury is of considerable interest, especially as it relates to the potential effect on a professional athlete. While these novel substances have potential to enhance healing and regeneration of injured tissues, there is a lack of robust data to support their regular use at this time. There are no absolutes when considering the implementation of orthobiologics, and unbiased clinical judgment with an emphasis on player safety should always prevail. Current best evidence supports the following: Key Points There is support for the use of leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. There is support for consideration of using leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma for patellar tendinopathy. The efficacy of using mesenchymal stromal cell injections in the management of joint and soft tissue injuries remains unproven at this time. There are very few data to suggest that current cell therapy treatments lead to any true functional tissue regeneration. Meticulous and sterile preparation guidelines must be followed to minimize the risk for infection and adverse events if these treatments are pursued. Given the high variability in orthobiologic formulations, team physicians must stay up-to-date with the most recent peer-reviewed literature and orthobiologic preparation protocols for specific injuries. Evidence-based treatment algorithms are necessary to identify the optimal orthobiologic formulations for specific tissues and injuries in athletes. Changes in the regulatory environment and improved standardization are required given the exponential increase in utilization as novel techniques and substances are introduced into clinical practice.

orthopedics,sport sciences
An Update on Orthobiologics: Cautious Optimism

Patrick A Nelson,Tom George,Edward Bowen,Andrew J Sheean,Asheesh Bedi,Patrick A. Nelson,Andrew J. Sheean

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465231192473

IF: 4.8

2024-01-03

The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 52, Issue 1, Page 242-257, January 2024. Orthobiologics are rapidly growing in use given their potential to augment healing for multiple musculoskeletal conditions. Orthobiologics consist of a variety of treatments including platelet-rich plasma and stem cells that provide conceptual appeal in providing local delivery of growth factors and inflammation modulation. The lack of standardization in nomenclature and applications within the literature has led to a paucity of high-quality evidence to support their frequent use. The purpose of this review was to describe the current landscape of orthobiologics and the most recent evidence regarding their use.

orthopedics,sport sciences
[Organ-type lithiasis. I. Congenital urologic pathology associated with lithiasis].

J. Castiñeiras,P. Cabello Torres,C. Varó,M. J. Sánchez del Pino,F. Rodríguez‐Rubio

IF: 0.887

Actas Urológicas Españolas

Abstract:
Should I add orthobiologics to my knee osteotomy practice? A systematic review

Amit Meena,Riccardo D'Ambrosi,Luca Farinelli,Manish Attri,Ahmed Mabrouk,Norimasa Nakamura,Matthieu Ollivier,Sachin Tapasvi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2024.06.001

2024-06-06

Abstract:Importance: Orthobiologics has seen a renaissance over the last decade as an adjunct therapy during osteotomy due to the limited inherent regenerative potential of damaged intraarticular tissues. Aim or objective: This systematic review aims to present the latest evidence regarding using orthobiologics with simultaneous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) for knee osteoarthritis. The results of this study may guide surgeons to improve their clinical results and clear the air regarding confusion over whether or not to add orthobiologics to HTO in clinical practice backed by scientific evidence. Evidence review: According to PRISMA guidelines a systematic search for relevant literature was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases of all studies published in English from January 1990 to May 2023. The following search terms were entered into the title, abstract, and keyword fields: "knee" or "osteotomy" AND "valgus" or "varus" AND "regenerative medicine" or "PRP" or "mesenchymal stem cells" or "stem cells" or "BMAC" or "bone marrow" or "growth factors" or "umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cell" or "stromal vascular fraction". The AMSTAR-2 checklist was used to confirm the quality of the systematic review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series were included. Studies that reported clinical outcomes in patients treated with knee osteotomy for varus/valgus knee with concomitant adjunction of regenerative treatment [Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSC), Human Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived (HUCBD), Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSC), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), stromal vascular fraction (SVF)] were included. The outcome measures extracted from the studies were the KOOS score, Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, WOMAC Score, KSS, Tegner, HSS, radiographic tibiofemoral angle, posterior tibial slope and complications. The current systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO Registry (CRD42023439379). Findings: Osteotomy for unicompartmental arthritis with adjunction of orthobiologics such as PRP, ADSC, HVCBD, MSC, BMAC, and SVF presents a consistent statistically significant clinical improvement compared to preoperative scores regardless of the treatment modality used and there were no notable complications associated with the use of these novel agents. Conclusions and relevance: Orthobiologics and knee osteotomies could improve outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis desiring Knee preservation surgeries. However, only a few studies are available on the topic to conclude anything with certainty, the patients included in the studies could not be disintegrated based on the grade of osteoarthritis (OA), type, dosage and frequency of administration of orthobiologic and type of additional surgical procedures used. Therefore, better-structured RCTs are required to implement this finding into routine Orthopaedic practice. Level of evidence: Level 4.
Translational Research on Orthobiologics in the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease: From the Laboratory to the Operating Room

Claire D. Eliasberg,Paula M.P. Trinh,Scott A. Rodeo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/jsa.0000000000000395

2024-05-04

Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review

Abstract:Rotator cuff disease is one of the most common human tendinopathies and can lead to significant shoulder dysfunction. Despite efforts to improve symptoms in patients with rotator cuff tears and healing rates after rotator cuff repair, high rates of failed healing and persistent shoulder morbidity exist. Increasing interest has been placed on the utilization of orthobiologics—scaffolds, cell-based augmentation, platelet right plasma (platelet-rich plasma), and small molecule-based strategies—in the management of rotator cuff disease and the augmentation of rotator cuff repairs. This is a complex topic that involves novel treatment strategies, including patches/scaffolds, small molecule-based, cellular-based, and tissue-derived augmentation techniques. Ultimately, translational research, with a particular focus on preclinical models, has allowed us to gain some insights into the utility of orthobiologics in the treatment of rotator cuff disease and will continue to be critical to our further understanding of the underlying cellular mechanisms moving forward.

sport sciences
Postprocedure protocols after intraarticular orthobiologic injections—A scoping review

Ryan C. Kruse,Kristina D. Rossmiller,Timothy R. Fleagle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13271

2024-10-11

PM&R

Abstract:Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease affecting 500 million people throughout the world. Although orthobiologics have been proposed as a symptom and disease modifying treatment for osteoarthritis, there is significant heterogeneity in the results of the orthobiologic procedures in the literature. One possible explanation for the heterogeneity is the inconsistent reporting and description of the postorthobiologic protocols. The goal of this scoping review was to identify the current literature on the use of orthobiologics for osteoarthritis and critically evaluate the postorthobiologic protocol within these studies. A total of 200 identified studies met inclusion criteria. In 37.5% of studies, there was no mention of a postorthobiologic protocol. Of the 125 studies that did mention a postorthobiologic protocol, only 38.4% included a rehabilitation protocol, 21.6% included postprocedure weightbearing restrictions, and only 2 (1.6%) mentioned the use of durable medical equipment. Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug restriction was described in 91.2% of study protocols, whereas corticosteroids and immunosuppressants were restricted in 84.8% and 19.2% of protocols, respectively. The results of this scoping review demonstrate the inconsistent reporting of postorthobiologic procedure protocols in the literature, with significant heterogeneity in those that are described. These findings highlight the need for future research and improved reporting of postorthobiologic protocols.

rehabilitation,sport sciences
Therapeutic Controlled Release Strategies for Human Osteoarthritis

Dan Wang,Wei Liu,Jagadeesh K. Venkatesan,Henning Madry,Magali Cucchiarini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202402737

IF: 10

2024-11-08

Advanced Healthcare Materials

Abstract:Therapeutic controlled release is a promising approach to treat the progressive and irreversible pathological changes in human osteoarthritis. This strategy is based on the application of recombinant molecules, drugs, and gene sequences via biocompatible materials and may provide effective and long‐lasting tools promoting the spatiotemporal delivery, expression, and activities of candidate agents in the affected joints. Osteoarthritis is a progressive, irreversible debilitating whole joint disease that affects millions of people worldwide. Despite the availability of various options (non‐pharmacological and pharmacological treatments and therapy, orthobiologics, and surgical interventions), none of them can definitively cure osteoarthritis in patients. Strategies based on the controlled release of therapeutic compounds via biocompatible materials may provide powerful tools to enhance the spatiotemporal delivery, expression, and activities of the candidate agents as a means to durably manage the pathological progression of osteoarthritis in the affected joints upon convenient intra‐articular (injectable) delivery while reducing their clearance, dissemination, or side effects. The goal of this review is to describe the current knowledge and advancements of controlled release to treat osteoarthritis, from basic principles to applications in vivo using therapeutic recombinant molecules and drugs and more innovatively gene sequences, providing a degree of confidence to manage the disease in patients in a close future.

nanoscience & nanotechnology,engineering, biomedical,materials science, biomaterials
New biomaterials for orthopedic implants

Kevin Ong,Min Yun,Joshua White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/orr.s63437

2015-09-01

Orthopedic Research and Reviews

Abstract:Abstract: With the increasing use of orthopedic implants worldwide, there continues to be great interest in the development of novel technologies to further improve the effective clinical performance of contemporary treatment modalities and devices. Continuing research interest also exists in developing novel bulk biomaterials (eg, polycarbonate urethanes, silicon) or novel formulations of existing but less widely used biomaterials (eg, polyaryletherketones, polyetheretherketone). There is also growing focus on customizing the material properties of bioabsorbables and composite materials with fillers such as bioactive ceramics. In terms of tissue engineering, more recent developments have focused on basic engineering and biological fundamentals to use cells, signaling factors, and the scaffold material itself to better restore tissue and organ structure and function. There has also been recent controversy with the use of injectables as a nonsurgical approach to treat joint disorders, but more attention is being directed toward the development of newer formulations with different molecular weights. The industry has also continuously sought to improve coatings to supplement the function of existing implants, with the goal of improving their osseointegrative qualities and incorporating antimicrobial properties. These include the use of bone morphogenetic protein, bisphosphonates, calcium phosphate, silicon nitride, and iodine. Due to the widespread use of bone graft materials, recent developments in synthetic graft materials have explored further development of bioactive glass, ceramic materials, and porous titanium particles. This review article provides an overview of ongoing efforts in the above research areas. Keywords: coatings, scaffolds, bioabsorbables, bone graft, injectables
Orthopaedic Musculoskeletal Biologics Research Impacts Patient Care: The Second Annual Arthroscopy Orthobiologics Virtual Special Issue

Alexander C Weissman,Allen A Yazdi,Brian J Cole,Alexander C. Weissman,Allen A. Yazdi,Brian J. Cole

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.046

2024-02-01

Abstract:The field of orthobiologics is rapidly evolving, offering clinicians a shift in treatment from symptom relief to the potential for disease modification and tissue repair. These agents, derived from autologous tissues, components of blood, and growth factors, are used as surgical adjuncts or as standalone treatments. Their clinical applications are expanding to encompass a variety of conditions, supported by a growing base of research efforts. Arthroscopy and its companion publications are committed to evidence-based research with a robust history of publications that enhance clinical decision-making and impact patient care. This curated collection of articles highlights the year's most compelling advancements in orthopaedic musculoskeletal biologics research.

surgery,orthopedics,sport sciences
A systematic scoping review of the latest data on orthobiologics in the surgical treatment of nonunion

David Gagnon,Maya Mouallem,Stéphane Leduc,Dominique M. Rouleau,Julien Chapleau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103896

2024-04-26

Abstract:Introduction: Recent studies have shown a growing concern regarding the cost effectiveness and the lack of supporting data for the biologic agents that are being increasingly used in the orthopedic field. Our aim was to conduct a systematic scoping review of recent publications (last five years) on the use of orthobiologics to treat fracture nonunion and summarize the latest available data. Patients and Methods: The inclusion criteria for this review were articles published in English, from 2016 to 2022, and focusing on the use of orthobiologics for the surgical treatment of nonunion. Searches were conducted in March 2023 using Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase. Studies on spinal fusion or gene therapy were excluded. Reviews, case reports with five cases or less, conference proceedings, preliminary reports, pediatric or non-human studies were excluded as well. Results: The search found 1807 articles, 15 were eligible after PRISMA checklist and exclusions. The evidence was heterogenous and there was only one level II RCT. Recent data suggests that bone morphogenic protein (BMP-2) products could be effective for septic and aseptic tibial nonunions. However, the evidence was not conclusive regarding BMP-7, plasma rich platelets (PRP), stem cells or demineralized bone matrix (DBM). Discussion: Every nonunion case is different in terms of bone defect, biology, mechanical stability, surgical technique and host factors, which contributes to the conflicting reports on the efficacy of orthobiologics in the literature. We might never see a level 1, high powered and robust study defining the efficacy, safety profile and cost-effectiveness of such products. Level of evidence: IV

surgery,orthopedics
A Systematic Review of Current Clinical Practice Guidelines on Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid, Corticosteroid, and Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis: An International Perspective

Mark Phillips,Mohit Bhandari,John Grant,Asheesh Bedi,Thomas Trojian,Aaron Johnson,Emil Schemitsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211030272

IF: 2.6

2021-08-01

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Background: There are many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). They differ by region, considering local health care systems, along with cultural and economic factors. Currently, there are conflicting CPG recommendations across the various publications, which makes it difficult for clinicians to fully understand the optimal treatment decisions for knee OA management. Purpose: To summarize the current published CPG recommendations for the role of injections in the nonoperative management of knee OA, specifically with the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA), intra-articular corticosteroids (IA-CS), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A comprehensive search identified all nonoperative knee OA CPGs within the ECRI (formerly Emergency Care Research Institute) Guidelines Trust database, the Guidelines International Network database, Google Scholar, and the Trip (formerly Turning Research Into Practice) database. Guideline recommendations were categorized into strong, conditional, or uncertain recommendations for or against the use of IA-HA, IA-CS, or PRP. Guideline recommendations were summarized and depicted graphically to identify trends in recommendations over time. Results: The search strategy identified 27 CPGs that provided recommendations. There were 20 recommendations in favor of IA-HA use, 21 recommendations in favor of IA-CS use, and 9 recommendations that were uncertain or unable to make a formal recommendation for or against PRP use based on current evidence. Most recommendations considered IA-HA and IA-CS use for symptom relief when other nonoperative options are ineffective. IA-CS were noted to provide fast and short-acting symptom relief for acute episodes of disease exacerbation, while IA-HA may demonstrate a relatively delayed but prolonged effect in comparison. The CPGs concluded that PRP recommendations currently lack evidence to definitively recommend for or against use. Conclusion: Available CPGs provide recommendations on injectables for knee OA treatment. General guidance from a global perspective concluded that IA-CS and IA-HA are favored for different needed responses and can be utilized within the knee OA treatment paradigm, while PRP currently has insufficient evidence to make a conclusive recommendation for or against its use.

orthopedics,sport sciences
From bench to FDA to bedside: US regulatory trends for new stem cell therapies

Paul S. Knoepfler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2014.12.001

IF: 16.1

2015-03-01

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Abstract:The phrase "bench-to-bedside" is commonly used to describe the translation of basic discoveries such as those on stem cells to the clinic for therapeutic use in human patients. However, there is a key intermediate step in between the bench and the bedside involving governmental regulatory oversight such as by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States (US). Thus, it might be more accurate in most cases to describe the stem cell biological drug development process in this way: from bench to FDA to bedside. The intermediate development and regulatory stage for stem cell-based biological drugs is a multifactorial, continually evolving part of the process of developing a biological drug such as a stem cell-based regenerative medicine product. In some situations, stem cell-related products may not be classified as biological drugs in which case the FDA plays a relatively minor role. However, this middle stage is generally a major element of the process and is often colloquially referred to in an ominous way as "The Valley of Death". This moniker seems appropriate because it is at this point, and in particular in the work that ensues after Phase 1, clinical trials that most drug product development is terminated, often due to lack of funding, diseases being refractory to treatment, or regulatory issues. Not surprisingly, workarounds to deal with or entirely avoid this difficult stage of the process are evolving both inside and outside the domains of official regulatory authorities. In some cases these efforts involve the FDA invoking new mechanisms of accelerating the bench to beside process, but in other cases these new pathways bypass the FDA in part or entirely. Together these rapidly changing stem cell product development and regulatory pathways raise many scientific, ethical, and medical questions. These emerging trends and their potential consequences are reviewed here.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Reducing Challenges in Orthopedic Oncology Research

Samuel K. Simister,Shannon Tse,Aziz Saade,Chancey A. Sweeney,Barton L. Wise,Steven W. Thorpe,R. Lor Randall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061551

IF: 3.9

2024-03-09

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Background: Orthopedic oncology research is hindered by the scarcity of musculoskeletal tumors and research administrative inefficiencies. This paper introduces observational research through an innovative institution-specific methodology—termed an umbrella protocol. This protocol outlines a comprehensive standard procedure to expedite ethical approval for future aligned studies, reducing administrative barriers to research. Methods: We developed an umbrella protocol at an academic center, involving meticulous methodological identification and coordination with the institutional review board (IRB) to adhere to local guidelines. The protocol encompasses identifying investigators, research objectives, study goals, and data and safety monitoring frameworks necessary for typical standards. Results: Implementation of the umbrella protocol took 110 days to achieve exemption status, following multiple discussions with the IRB and extensive revisions. At the authors institution, this protocol significantly reduces protocol review times from an average of six-to-eight weeks to nearly instantaneous, facilitating a streamlined research process. Additionally, we established a dedicated orthopedic oncology patient registry to enhance future research endeavors. Conclusions: The adoption of umbrella protocols represents a pioneering strategy in orthopedic oncology. This approach mitigates research administrative burdens and broadens research scope in the field. It underscores the necessity of IRB collaboration, methodological precision, and stringent data management. The article also reflects on the ethical implications and potential biases introduced by emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, advocating for diligent ethical oversight. The establishment of an umbrella protocol marks a significant step towards more efficient research methodologies, ultimately aiming to improve patient care and outcomes for individuals with rare musculoskeletal conditions.

medicine, general & internal
Injections in the osteoarthritic knee: a review of current treatment options

Gerardo Fusco,Francesco M Gambaro,Berardo Di Matteo,Elizaveta Kon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.210026

2021-06-28

Abstract:Knee osteoarthritis is a degenerative condition characterized by progressive cartilage degradation, subchondral damage, and bone remodelling. Among the approaches implemented to achieve symptomatic and functional improvements, injection treatments have gained increasing attention due to the possibility of intra-articular delivery with reduced side effects compared to systemic therapies.In addition to well-established treatment options such as hyaluronic acid (HA), cortico-steroids (CS) and oxygen-ozone therapy, many other promising products have been employed in the last decades such as polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) and biologic agents such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Moreover, ultrasound-guided intra-meniscal injection and X-ray-guided subchondral injection techniques have been introduced into clinical practice.Even when not supported by high evidence consensus, intra-articular CS and HA injections have gained precise indications for symptomatic relief and clinical improvement in OA. Biological products are strongly supported by in vitro evidence but there is still a lack of robust clinical evidence. PRP and MSCs seem to relieve OA symptoms through a regulation of the joint homeostasis, even if their capability to restore articular cartilage is still to be proved in vivo.Due to increasing interest in the subchondral bone pathology, subchondral injections have been developed with promising results in delaying joint replacement. Nevertheless, due to their recent development and the heterogeneity of the injected products (biologic agents or calcium phosphate), this approach still lacks strong enough evidence to be fully endorsed.Combined biological treatments, nano-molecular approaches, monoclonal antibodies and 'personalized' target therapies are currently under development or under investigation with the aim of expanding our armamentarium against knee OA. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:501-509. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210026.
Orthobiologic Interventions Using Ultrasound Guidance

Gerard Malanga,Dena Abdelshahed,Prathap Jayaram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2016.04.007

Abstract:The application of regenerative therapies for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions has emerged over the last decade with recent acceleration. These include prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma, and mesenchymal stem cell therapy. These strategies augment the body's innate physiology to heal pathologic processes. This article presents an overview of platelet-rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cell therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. A brief literature review is included, as are techniques for the use of ultrasound guidance to assist with these procedures.
Enhancing Cartilage Repair: Surgical Approaches, Orthobiologics, and the Promise of Exosomes

Jacob Singer,Noah Knezic,Jonathan Layne,Greta Gohring,Jeff Christiansen,Ben Rothrauff,Johnny Huard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life14091149

2024-09-12

Life

Abstract:Treating cartilage damage is challenging as its ability for self-regeneration is limited. Left untreated, it can progress to osteoarthritis (OA), a joint disorder characterized by the deterioration of articular cartilage and other joint tissues. Surgical options, such as microfracture and cell/tissue transplantation, have shown promise as techniques to harness the body's endogenous regenerative capabilities to promote cartilage repair. Nonetheless, these techniques have been scrutinized due to reported inconsistencies in long-term outcomes and the tendency for the defects to regenerate as fibrocartilage instead of the smooth hyaline cartilage native to joint surfaces. Orthobiologics are medical therapies that utilize biologically derived substances to augment musculoskeletal healing. These treatments are rising in popularity because of their potential to enhance surgical standards of care. More recent developments in orthobiologics have focused on the role of exosomes in articular cartilage repair. Exosomes are nano-sized extracellular vesicles containing cargo such as proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids, and are known to facilitate intercellular communication, though their regenerative potential still needs to be fully understood. This review aims to demonstrate the advancements in cartilage regeneration, highlight surgical and biological treatment options, and discuss the recent strides in understanding the precise mechanisms of action involved.

biology
The FDA Reclassification of Cervical Pedicle and Lateral Mass Screws: A Case Study in Regulatory History

Jonathan H. Sussman,Ahmed Albayar,Anissa Saylany,Bhargavi R. Budihal,Dominic Romeo,Jason Xu,Joshua Rosenow,Robert F. Heary,William C. Welch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00654-1

2024-04-17

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Abstract:The classification of medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involves rigorous scrutiny from specialized panels that designate devices as Class I, II, or III depending on their levels of relative risk to patient health. Posterior rigid pedicle screw systems were first classified by the FDA in 1984 and have since revolutionized the treatment of many spine pathologies. Despite this early classification by the FDA, posterior cervical pedicle and lateral mass screws were not reclassified from unclassified to Class III and then to Class II until 2019, nearly 35 years after their initial classification. This reclassification process involved a decades-long interplay between the FDA, formal panels, manufacturers, academic leaders, practicing physicians, and patients. It was delayed by lawsuits and a paucity of data demonstrating the ability to improve outcomes for cervical spinal pathologies. The off-label use of thoracolumbar pedicle screw rigid fixation systems by early adopters assisted manufacturers and professional organizations in providing the necessary data for the reclassification process. This case study highlights the collaboration between physicians and professional organizations in facilitating FDA reclassification and underscores changes to the current classification process that could avoid the prolonged dichotomy between common medical practice and FDA guidelines.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics

Alphonse Laveran (1845–1922): Discoverer of the Malarial Parasite and Nobel Laureate, 1907

FDA Regulatory Pathways for Knee Cartilage Repair Products

Regulation of orthopaedic devices: Future implications for research and innovation

Thermal Spray Coatings on Orthopedic Devices: When and How the FDA Reviews Your Coatings

The 2020 NBA Orthobiologics Consensus Statement

An Update on Orthobiologics: Cautious Optimism

[Organ-type lithiasis. I. Congenital urologic pathology associated with lithiasis].

Should I add orthobiologics to my knee osteotomy practice? A systematic review

Translational Research on Orthobiologics in the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease: From the Laboratory to the Operating Room

Postprocedure protocols after intraarticular orthobiologic injections—A scoping review

Therapeutic Controlled Release Strategies for Human Osteoarthritis

New biomaterials for orthopedic implants

Orthopaedic Musculoskeletal Biologics Research Impacts Patient Care: The Second Annual Arthroscopy Orthobiologics Virtual Special Issue

A systematic scoping review of the latest data on orthobiologics in the surgical treatment of nonunion

A Systematic Review of Current Clinical Practice Guidelines on Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid, Corticosteroid, and Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis: An International Perspective

From bench to FDA to bedside: US regulatory trends for new stem cell therapies

Reducing Challenges in Orthopedic Oncology Research

Injections in the osteoarthritic knee: a review of current treatment options

Orthobiologic Interventions Using Ultrasound Guidance

Enhancing Cartilage Repair: Surgical Approaches, Orthobiologics, and the Promise of Exosomes

The FDA Reclassification of Cervical Pedicle and Lateral Mass Screws: A Case Study in Regulatory History