Background
With over 2 million grafts performed annually, bone ranks second only to blood in the frequency of transplants. This high demand is primarily driven by the persistent challenges posed by bone defects, particularly following trauma or surgical interventions such as tumour excision. The demand for effective and efficient treatments has increased exponentially in the twenty-first century. Limitations associated with autologous bone grafts drive exploration into replacements, including allografts, synthetic substitutes, and 3D-printed scaffolds. This research aimed to unravel disparities in the knowledge and evaluation of current and future bone defect treatments between surgeons and biomaterial scientists.
Methods
A prospective cross-sectional survey, pre-registered with the OSF (https://osf.io/y837m/?view_only=fab29e24df4f4adf897353ac70aa3361) and conducted online from October 2022 to March 2023, collected data on surgeons’ views (n = 337) and scientists (n = 99) on bone defect treatments.
Results
Scientists were significantly more optimistic than surgeons regarding the future replacement of autologous bone grafts with synthetic or tissue-engineered substitutes (p < 0.001). Accordingly, scientists foresee a paradigm shift from autologous bone grafts to biomaterial and tissue-engineered solutions, reflecting their confidence in the ongoing advancements within this field.
Furthermore, regulatory trepidations for 3D-printed bone scaffolds were acknowledged, with scientists emphasizing the need for a more significant focus on clinical relevance in preclinical studies and regulatory clarity. In a ranked categorical assessment, witnessing the technology in action was deemed most influential in adopting new bone regeneration methods by both scientists and surgeons.
Conclusions
To conclude, this study was conducted through a web-based survey, highlighting a substantial translational gap. It underscores the immediate need (“call to action”) for meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration between surgeons and scientists, often referred to as the need to “walk the talk”. The findings underscore the critical importance of aligning clinical needs, research outcomes, and regulatory frameworks to improve the development and implementation of biomaterial-based bone graft substitutes that demonstrate efficacy and efficiency in bone defect treatment.
