The Role of Three-Dimensional Scaffolds in Treating Long Bone Defects: Evidence from Preclinical and Clinical Literature—A Systematic Review

Table 3

Complete details of 5 clinical papers identified in this systematic review focusing on the usefulness of scaffolds with or without augmentation in treating long bone defects.

References	Study type	Pathology	Scaffold	Augmentation	Number of patients	Follow-up	Results
Werber et al., 2000; (J Hand Surg) [70]	Case series	Distal radius fracture	HA ceramic from bovine spongiosa; (Merck Biomaterials)	—	14	15 m	Bone healed around the graft material and fibrovascular ingrowth within the scaffold observed
Quarto et al., 2001; (N Engl J Med) [71]	Case series	Tibia, humerus, and ulna defect	Porous HA ceramic (Finceramica)	BMSCs; cells/mL)	3	15–27 m	Limb function recovered for all patients; good integration with the host bones by the second month after surgery in all cases
Arai et al., 2005; (Clin Orthop Relat Res) [72]	Case series	Fibula resections for use as autograft for reconstruction of large segmental defects of tibia	TCP (Osferion Olympus)	—	14	4–42 m; (mean 17 m)	In 12 patients scaffold was absorbed and replaced by newly formed bone at an average 9.3 months after surgery. In all children, new bone formation was at 3.2 months; only one patient had complete regeneration of the fibula
Marcacci et al., 2007; (Tissue Engineering) [73]	Case series	Tibia, humerus, and ulna defect	Porous HA ceramic (Finceramica)	BMSCs; cells/mL)	4	1.25–7 y	In all patients, good integration of the implants with host bone; no late fractures in the implant zone

HA: hydroxyapatite, TCP: tricalcium phosphate, and BMSCs: bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cell.