Bioactive and Bioinductive Implants Are Increasingly Used in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine but Adequately Controlled Studies Are Needed: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: To describe the currently available literature reporting clinical outcomes for bioactive and bioinductive implants in sports medicine.

METHODS

In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of 4 databases was completed to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were studies using bioactive or bioinductive implants in human clinical studies for sports medicine procedures. Data were extracted and reported in narrative form, along with study characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 145 studies were included involving 6,043 patients. The majority of included studies were level IV evidence (65.5%), and only 36 included a control group (24.8%). Bioactive materials are defined as any materials that stimulate an advantageous response from the body upon implantation, whereas bioinductive materials provide a favorable environment for a biological response initiated by the host. Bioactivity can speed healing and improve clinical outcome by improving vascularization, osteointegration, osteoinduction, tendon healing, and soft-tissue regeneration or inducing immunosuppression or preventing infection. The most common implants reported were for knee (67.6%, primarily cartilage [most commonly osteochondral defects], anterior cruciate ligament, and meniscus), shoulder (16.6%, primarily rotator cuff), or ankle (11.7%, primarily Achilles repair). The most common type of implant was synthetic (44.1%), followed by autograft (30.3%), xenograft (16.6%), and allograft (9.0%). In total, 69% of implants were standalone treatments and 31% were augmentation.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing bioactive and bioinductive implant literature in sports medicine is largely composed of small, low-level-of-evidence studies lacking a control group.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Before bioactive implants can be adapted as a new standard of care, larger, comparative clinical outcome studies with long-term follow-up are essential.