Aims. The value of core decompression (CD) in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether CD combined with other treatments could improve the clinical and radiological outcomes of ONFH patients compared with CD alone. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until June 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) comparing CD alone and CD combined with other measures (CD + cell therapy, CD + bone grafting, CD + porous tantalum rod, etc.) for the treatment of ONFH were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes of interest were Harris Hip Score (HHS), ONFH stage progression, structural failure (collapse) of the femoral head, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The pooled data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results. A total of 20 studies with 2,123 hips were included (CD alone = 768, CD combined with other treatments = 1,355). The combination of CD with other therapeutic interventions resulted in a higher HHS (mean difference (MD) = 6.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.10 to 10.83, p = 0.004) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score (MD = −10.92, 95% CI = -21.41 to -4.03, p = 0.040) and a lower visual analogue scale (VAS) score (MD = −0.99, 95% CI = -1.56 to -0.42, p < 0.001) than CD alone. For the rates of disease stage progression, 91 (20%) progressed in the intervention group compared to 146 (36%) in the control group (odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.64, p = 0.001). In addition, the intervention group had a more significant advantage in delaying femoral head progression to the collapsed stage (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.61, p < 0.001) and reducing the odds of conversion to THA (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.55, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. There were no serious adverse events in either group. Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of cell therapy significantly improved clinical and radiological outcomes compared to CD alone, and this approach appeared to be more effective than other therapies, particularly in precollapse (stage I to II) ONFH patients. Conclusion. There was marked heterogeneity in the studies. There is a trend towards improved clinical outcomes with the addition of stem cell therapy to CD. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):445–458

Osteoarthritis (OA) is mainly caused by ageing, strain, trauma, and congenital joint abnormalities, resulting in articular cartilage degeneration. During the pathogenesis of OA, the changes in subchondral bone (SB) are not only secondary manifestations of OA, but also an active part of the disease, and are closely associated with the severity of OA. In different stages of OA, there were microstructural changes in SB. Osteocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts in SB are important in the pathogenesis of OA. The signal transduction mechanism in SB is necessary to maintain the balance of a stable phenotype, extracellular matrix (ECM) synthesis, and bone remodelling between articular cartilage and SB. An imbalance in signal transduction can lead to reduced cartilage quality and SB thickening, which leads to the progression of OA. By understanding changes in SB in OA, researchers are exploring drugs that can regulate these changes, which will help to provide new ideas for the treatment of OA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):536–545.

Despite its intrinsic ability to regenerate form and function after injury, bone tissue can be challenged by a multitude of pathological conditions. While innovative approaches have helped to unravel the cascades of bone healing, this knowledge has so far not improved the clinical outcomes of bone defect treatment. Recent findings have allowed us to gain in-depth knowledge about the physiological conditions and biological principles of bone regeneration. Now it is time to transfer the lessons learned from bone healing to the challenging scenarios in defects and employ innovative technologies to enable biomaterial-based strategies for bone defect healing. This review aims to provide an overview on endogenous cascades of bone material formation and how these are transferred to new perspectives in biomaterial-driven approaches in bone regeneration.

Cite this article: T. Winkler, F. A. Sass, G. N. Duda, K. Schmidt-Bleek. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering: The unsolved challenge. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:232–243. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.73.BJR-2017-0270.R1.