A new study shows that a gap between scientific innovation and clinical use is slowing the adoption of advanced biomaterials for treating bone defects.
The research, published in BMC Medicine, calls for better collaboration between scientists and surgeons.
Despite progress in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, some surgeons remain hesitant to use these new treatments.
The authors emphasise the critical role of collaborative efforts in accelerating the translation of scientific breakthroughs into surgical realities.
With over two million bone grafts performed annually – second only to blood transfusions in transplant frequency – the demand for practical solutions to treat bone defects continues to rise.
These defects, often caused by trauma or surgical procedures such as tumour excision, place immense strain on healthcare systems worldwide.
Dr Stephen Whyte, a behavioural economist and deputy director at Queensland University of Technology’s Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology, explained: ‘This high global demand is primarily driven by the ongoing challenges posed by bone defects, particularly following trauma or surgical interventions such as tumour excision. Limitations associated with autologous bone grafts have driven exploration into alternatives like allografts, synthetic substitutes, and 3D-printed scaffolds.’
However, despite shared enthusiasm for innovation, the study reveals a stark divergence in attitudes between scientists and surgeons.
While scientists are optimistic about the potential of biomaterials and tissue-engineered solutions, surgeons remain more cautious. They call for more explicit evidence of clinical relevance and regulatory guidance.
Professor Dietmar W Hutmacher, director of the Centre of Regenerative Medicine at QUT, highlighted this discrepancy.
He said: ‘Scientists foresee a fundamental change from autologous bone grafts to biomaterial and tissue-engineered solutions, reflecting their confidence in ongoing advancements. At the same time, they stress the importance of ensuring clinical relevance in preclinical studies and addressing regulatory uncertainties surrounding 3D-printed bone scaffolds.’
The study, conducted in collaboration with German research institutions and the University of Canberra, surveyed 337 surgeons and 99 scientists.
It revealed a consensus on one key factor: the importance of witnessing new technologies in action. Both groups agreed that live demonstrations or clinical trials showcasing the efficacy of biomaterial-based bone graft substitutes were the most influential factors for driving adoption.
Dr Whyte called for interdisciplinary alignment: ‘Our findings underscore the critical importance of aligning clinical needs, research outcomes, and regulatory frameworks. A more cohesive interdisciplinary approach is essential to develop and implement bone defect treatments that are both effective and accessible.’
Surgeons who participated in the study identified several barriers to adoption, including a lack of clinical relevance in preclinical studies and the need for clearer regulatory pathways for innovations like 3D-printed scaffolds.
Addressing these concerns will foster confidence in adopting advanced biomaterials and tissue-engineered products.
The researchers also highlighted the transformative potential of 3D printing technologies for orthopaedic trauma surgery.
These innovations offer advantages such as automation, speed, reproducibility, flexibility, and reduced manufacturing costs, making them promising alternatives to traditional methods.
Dr Whyte maintained that now is the time to ‘walk the talk’.
‘Surgeons and scientists must work together more closely than ever. A more cohesive interdisciplinary approach is essential to develop bone defect treatments that meet clinical needs while being widely accessible.’
