Next Article in Journal
Microstructure, Crystallographic Texture, and Mechanical Properties of Friction Stir Welded Mild Steel for Shipbuilding Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
Snail Based Carbonated-Hydroxyapatite Material as Adsorbents for Water Iron (II)
Previous Article in Journal
Expired EBT3 Films’ Sensitivity for the Measurement of X-ray and UV Radiation: An Optical Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Horizons for Hydroxyapatite Supported by DXA Assessment—A Preliminary Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/ma15082906
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Hydroxyapatite Use in Spine Surgery—Molecular and Clinical Aspect

by
Jakub Litak
1,
Wojciech Czyzewski
1,2,
Michał Szymoniuk
1,
Bartlomiej Pastuszak
1,
Joanna Litak
3,
Grzegorz Litak
4,
Cezary Grochowski
5,*,
Mansur Rahnama-Hezavah
6 and
Piotr Kamieniak
1
1
Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Lublin, Jaczewskiego 4, 20-090 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Didactics and Medical Simulation, Medical University of Lublin, Chodzki 4, 20-090 Lublin, Poland
3
Centrum Onkologii Ziemi Lubelskiej, Jaczewskiego 4, 20-090 Lublin, Poland
4
Department of Automation, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 36, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
5
Laboratory of Virtual Man, Medical University of Lublin, 20-439 Lublin, Poland
6
Department of Dental Surgery, Medical University of Lublin, 20-081 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(8), 2906; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082906
Submission received: 4 December 2021 / Revised: 3 April 2022 / Accepted: 12 April 2022 / Published: 15 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multiple Applications of Hydroxyapatite-Based Materials)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Hydroxyapatite possesses desirable properties as a scaffold in tissue engineering: it is biocompatible at a site of implantation, and it is degradable to non-toxic products. Moreover, its porosity enables infiltration of cells, nutrients and waste products. The outcome of hydroxyapatite implantation highly depends on the extent of the host immune response. Authors emphasise major roles of the chemical, morphological and physical properties of the surface of biomaterial used. A number of techniques have been applied to transform the theoretical osteoconductive features of HAp into spinal fusion systems—from integration of HAp with autograft to synthetic intervertebral implants. The most popular uses of HAp in spine surgery include implants (ACDF), bone grafts in posterolateral lumbar fusion and transpedicular screws coating. In the past, autologous bone graft has been used as an intervertebral cage in ACDF. Due to the morbidity related to autograft harvesting from the iliac bone, a synthetic cage with osteoconductive material such as hydroxyapatite seems to be a good alternative. Regarding posterolateral lumbar fusion, it requires the graft to induce new bone growth and reinforce fusion between the vertebrae. Hydroxyapatite formulations have shown good results in that field. Moreover, the HAp coating has proven to be an efficient method of increasing screw fixation strength. It can decrease the risk of complications such as screw loosening after pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic patients. The purpose of this literature review is to describe in vivo reaction to HAp implants and to summarise its current application in spine surgery.

1. Introduction

Hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2, HAp) is the most significant inorganic component of teeth and bone tissue [1]. Due to their crystallographic and chemical similarity with human bone tissue, synthetic ceramics based on hydroxyapatites are commonly used in biomedical applications, such as dentistry and orthopaedics, including spine surgery [2,3].
The outcome of hydroxyapatite implantation highly depends on the extent of the host immune response [4,5]. This significantly affects tissue remodelling as well as wound healing processes caused by a surge of reactions taking place on the Hap–tissue interface that includes angiogenesis, activation of the fibroblast, as well as healing and remodelling of the matrix. A created immunological microenvironment stands behind a positive outcome of HAp integration [6,7]. Cells participating in host–cell response in embedding hydroxyapatite are, among others, mast cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and multinucleated giant cells [8]. Recruitment of monocytes and neutrophils and subsequent differentiation of monocytes to macrophages initialises the process [9]. The aforementioned immune cells not only produce ROS designed to eliminate the foreign body but also produce a span of cytokines and chemokines that stimulate fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and mesenchymal stem cells to create a new tissue [10,11,12,13,14].
Hydroxyapatite possesses desirable properties as a scaffold in tissue engineering: it is biocompatible at a site of implantation and degradable to non-toxic products. Moreover, its porosity enables the infiltration of cells, nutrients, and waste products [15].
The authors emphasise the major role of the chemical, morphological and physical properties of the surface of biomaterial used [16,17,18]. The modulated reactions include cell adhesion, formation of the foreign body giant cells, and protein absorption. Multiple papers proved the capability to stimulate osteoinduction, depending on the material’s texture [19,20,21,22,23,24]. Regarding the type of texture, MSC differentiates to osteoblasts accordingly [25,26]. Modifications of chemical structure also have a vast impact on immunoreactivity [27]. Moreover, the aging of HAp implants, including radiation exposure, has a significant influence on its clinical performance [28,29].
Hydroxyapatite itself varies in morphological and physicochemical features as solubility, crystallinity, granulometric distribution as well as shape and size of pores. In a study on animal models in a team led by da Freitas Costa, these differences did not have an impact on cellular response [30]. According to Sadowska et al., incubation of RAW murine cells with less porous calcium-deficient HAp (CD-HAp) generated the release of a decreased amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines [31].
Laquerriere et al. underlined various immune responses to the HAp particles’ features such as shape, size, or sintering temperature. Phagocytable spherical molecules increase expression as well as production by monocytes of TNF alpha and IL-6, in contrast to these non-phagocytable cells, which had an influence on neither. Moreover, needle-shaped HAp particles had the highest impact on TNF alpha, IL-6, and IL-10 production [32]. The degree of immune response in vivo and in vitro was analysed in regard to HAp size and morphology by Filipa Labre et al. In this study, the inflammatory response was prolonged in smaller needle-shaped HAp particles compared to other shapes of HAp particles [33].
Understanding the reactions evoked by incorporated hydroxyapatite seems pivotal in anticipation of its biocompatibility [34].
Due to the recent development of micro- and nanotechnology, a wide range of biomaterials also differ in immunomodulatory effects [6,35,36]. Micro- and nanotopography are the key factors in the induction of osteogenesis by hydroxyapatite [37].
The most popular uses of HAp in spine surgery include implants (ACDF), bone grafts in posterolateral lumbar fusion, and transpedicular screws coating.
In the past, autologous bone graft has been used as an intervertebral cage for ACDF. Due to the morbidity related to autograft harvesting from iliac bone, a synthetic cage with an osteoconductive material such as hydroxyapatite seems to be a good alternative [38]. Regarding posterolateral lumbar fusion, it requires a graft to induce new bone growth and reinforce fusion between vertebrae. Hydroxyapatite formulations have shown good results in that field [39,40,41].
Moreover, a HAp coating has proven to be an efficient method of increasing screw fixation strength. It can decrease the risk of complications such as screw loosening after pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic patients [42,43].
This literature review describes in vivo immunologic reactions to HAp implants and summarises its current application in spine surgery.

2. Immunologic Reaction to Hydroxyapatite

2.1. Mast Cells, Cytokines, and Chemokines

The host recognises hydroxyapatite as a foreign body, which triggers cytokines and chemokines release [44]. Commonly, after this acute phase, the inflammatory state decreases, somatic cells proliferate and tissue remodelling occurs, which results in restoration of haemostasis. In place of unsuccessful resolution of a chronic phase that occurs, heralded by the fusion of macrophages, foreign body giant cell formation and encapsulation of the biomaterial takes place [45]. Degranulation of mast cells with histamine, IL-4, and IL-13 is known to be responsible for the foreign body inflammatory response. Subsequently, phagocytes, i.e., macrophages, are being recruited to adhere to the implant’s surface. This process is enhanced by the absorption of the host’s fibrinogen. Various adsorbed proteins including albumins, fibronectin, complement, gamma globulin, and vitronectin modulate the host immune response to hydroxyapatite. The degree of adsorption is highly dependent on HAp crystallinity [46], surface charge [47], and others [48]. After the acute phase of inflammation begins, the chronic phase is demarcated by the recruitment of mononuclear cells (lymphocytes and monocytes).

2.2. Macrophage Recruitment

Extravasation and migration of monocytes/macrophages are induced by cytokines and chemokines as CXC, CC, C, and CX3C. Other particles, directing macrophages to the site of the foreign body, are TGF-β, PDGF, PF4, leukotriene, and IL-1 released by platelets and blood clots [49]. Macrophages themselves, as the site of biomaterial, release further PDGF, TNF-α, IL-6, G-CSF, and GM-CSF, with the latter attracting more macrophages. As reported by Mesters et al., differences in the HAp substrate’s microstructure, whether with micrometric plate-like or nanometric needle-like crystals, differentiate in a degree of macrophage proliferation and activation. Plate-like crystals are characterised by a higher velocity of proliferation, which is believed to be due to less pronounced depletion of Ca ions with cell medium after contact with C-HAp. A lower release of reactive oxygen species was also observed in needle-like substrates [10]. Many chemokines are released, including CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL7, CCL8, and CCL13, which recruit macrophages in the biomaterial–human tissue interface [50]. There are two classic phenotypes of macrophages, which include either pro-inflammatory M1 and pro-healing (anti-inflammatory) M2 polarization, with the latter being responsible for tissue repair enhancement [51,52]. Implantation of biomaterial causes activation of M1 macrophages, and the chemoattractants and cytokines released in this phase stimulate osteoclastogenesis [53,54]. Moreover, activated M1 macrophages release cytokines with pro-inflammatory potential, which attract mesenchymal stem cells from local niches [55].
While M1 macrophages are vital in the initial phase of hydroxyapatite integration, an extended duration of M1 presence is responsible for chronic inflammation [56], causing higher expression of fibrous proteins as well as granuloma formation and encapsulation of an implant, which results in unsuccessful biomaterial implantation [57]. There are three subsets of M2 macrophages: M2a, M2b, and M2c [58]. While M2a and M2b are considered as mainly regulatory macrophages influencing Th2 lymphocytes, M2c is fundamental in tissue remodelling, suppression of inflammation, and promotion of angiogenesis [59].
The effective transition between M1 and M2 activation is responsible for balanced bone tissue regeneration. IL-10 and other anti-inflammatory cytokines are essential in providing an adequate microenvironment for osteogenesis [60].
Multiple studies have suggested the influence of biomaterial nanostructure on macrophage morphology [35,61,62].

2.3. Adhesive Cells Recruitment, Integrins, and Remodelling of the Cytoskeleton

Integrins belong to a family of cell surface receptors and mediate extra- and intracellular interactions [63]. They enable cell aggregation and direct migration and are composed of two subunits: alpha and beta [64]. Monocytes/macrophages express three types of beta subunit: B1, B2 and Beta3. Throughout B1, alfa4 and alfa5 bind to fibronectin and alfa 6 to laminin. Among B2, alfaL, alfaM and alfaD are specific for ICAM (intracellular adhesion molecules), alfaX attaches to fibrinogen, and C3bi complement fragment. alfaVB3 integrins attach to vitronectin [65]. The ability to adsorb proteins such as fibronectine or vitronectine to enable the further adhesion of blood-derived proteins is crucial in implanted biomaterial [66]. Due to increased amounts of attachment proteins, more osteoblasts and osteoblast precursors can potentially bind to the biomaterial which enhances bone ingrowth [67]. Moreover, these adhesive proteins on a HAp surface arrange a provisional matrix for further cell adhesion [68]. The deficiency of these proteins results in deteriorated attachment of bone-derived cells [69].
Subsequently, macrophages spread over the hydroxyapatite structure and undergo cytoskeleton remodelling [70]. The binding of proteins to the extracellular integrin’s domain activates its cytoplasmic domain that connects to intracellular particles [71]. Transduction of extracellular signals activates focal adhesion kinase (FAK) that regulates further focal adhesions and binds to cytoskeletal proteins such as paxillin [72]. Integrin receptors, FAK, as well as other kinases including ERK (extracellular signal-regulated kinase) and paxillin, talin, or vinculin interaction enables cytoskeleton remodelling [73,74].

2.4. Osteogenesis

Cell adhesion modulated by integrins triggers multiple intracellular cascades essential for cell destiny. Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling activated by integrins in the process of osteogenesis currently enjoys great interest by scientists. Numerous studies reported on the role of the MAPK signalling pathway in modifying cell differentiation into osteoblasts [75,76,77,78].
Both major MAPK signals p38 and ERK play a crucial role in an indirect modulation of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation into an osteogenic lineage [79].
Osteogenesis in place of HAp implantation occurs most likely due to osteoconduction [21]. In this process, hydroxyapatite acts as a matrix for vascular proliferation where migrating proosteoblasts create neighbouring tissue [80]. In other terms, osteoconduction is the capability of bone growth on a biomaterial surface. Osteoinductive CaP-based ceramics such as hydroxyapatite also present a high affinity for multiple bone growth factors [81]. Calcium phosphates are known for their biocompatibility, whereas calcium ions are known to stimulate osteoblastic mechanisms through ERK1/2 and PI3K/Akt activation [75]. Phosphates modulate the growth and differentiation of osteoblasts via IGF-1 and ERK 1/2. They also enhance the expression of bone morphogenic protein (BMP) [82,83].
Osteoinduction means the ability to enhance progenitor cells to differentiate towards osteoblastic lineages [84]. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) are recruited from bone marrow to the non-osseous implant sites through blood circulation. This contributes to ectopic bone formation which is induced by osteoinductive CaP ceramics such as HAP [85]. Differentiation of BMCS requires the expression of pro-osteogenic genes such as Runt-related transcriptional factor 2 (Runx2) [86].
In a study conducted by Campi et al., nHAp (HAp nanoparticles) added to cell cultures caused enhanced synthesis of OPN (osteopontin), OCN (osteocalcin), ALP (alkaline phosphate), DCN (decorin), and COL–III (collagen III) [87]. Bone-specific ALP and COL-I are early markers of osteogenesis, and other proteins brand further stages [88] of osteopontin functions to stabilize the matrix [89].

3. Use of Hydroxyapatite in Spine Surgery

3.1. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF)

The first historically documented clinical use of HAp in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) was noted by Koyama and Handa [90]. ACDF is a conventional technique of surgical treatment of post-traumatic and degenerative conditions of the cervical spine such as cervical spondylosis, especially degenerative disc disease. These cases may lead to spinal instability, chronic pain, radiculopathy, and myelopathy. Decompression of the neural structures and restoration of spinal stability, the foraminal area, disc space height, and spinal alignment are the main objectives of the ACDF.

3.1.1. Types of grafts for ACDF

Due to the morbidity related to autologous iliac bone graft harvesting, which has been used for ACDF in the past, alternative graft materials for ACDF have been developed. The purpose of the graft is not only to fill space after the discectomy, it should also be a scaffold for new bone mass formation, which has to withstand mechanical stress [91]. Moreover, the ideal bone substitute should be as non-traumatic as possible, restore natural spine curvatures, provide sufficient stability, and maintain the integrity of the endplates of vertebral bodies [92]. Currently, there are many alternatives for autografts in ACDF, such as titanium mesh cages (TMCs) [93], polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages [94], carbon-fibre cages [95] and nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide cages [38]. Additionally, hydroxyapatite formulations can be used as extenders for these grafts.

3.1.2. Hydroxyapatite Properties in ACDF

Hydroxyapatite is characterized by great osteoconductive properties, which show it as a potential alternative to the autogenous bone graft. This material shows almost equivalent arthrodesis effects to autografts [96,97]. Additionally, HAp has some advantages compared with autologous bone graft. This material is characterised by excellent biocompatibility and does not induce a foreign body reaction [92]. The use of HAp implants also eliminates morbidity at the donor site following autogenous iliac bone grafting and provides a shorter operation time. It may reduce the time of postoperative treatment and hospitalization [92].
Because of the lack of osteoinductive properties of HAp, it cannot stimulate bone growth itself. Thus, the assertion of full contact HAp with cancellous bone is necessary [98]. Therefore, osteoinductive features of HAp increase after resecting endplates of adjacent vertebral bodies due to exposure of cancellous bone [99]. A single material that compromises osteoconductive, as well as osteoinductive features, has not yet been developed. Thus, for better osteoinductivity, many authors suggest adding osteoinductive materials to the hydroxyapatite implant such as demineralized bone matrix (DBM) [100,101,102].
In situ, the HAp graft undergoes slight and slow absorption, while maintaining primary compressive strength. This is important, as the mechanical properties, namely fracture strength and stiffness, of HAp composite materials are sensitive to variation in the concentration of Hap [103,104]. In particular, both strength and stiffness decrease with decreasing HAp concentration, reflecting a decreasing capacity for effective stress transfer from the matrix material to the HAp phase [103,104]. Within 2 months after implantation, osteoblasts and osteocytes from adjacent vertebral bodies migrate between the pores of the HAp implant and stimulate the formation of new bone, which creates a connection between vertebrae [38,91]. Many studies have described several sequelae after the use of porous HAp grafts alone for ACDF, including dislodgement (3–4% of cases) [91], loss of height or subsidence [98], the emergence of radiolucent stripe [98], and breakage or cracks of the implant (2% of cases) [98,105]. Therefore, HAp should not be used in grafts alone, but as one of the components of the graft for providing better osteoconductive properties.

3.1.3. Nanohydroxyapatite Cages

Grafts manufactured from nanocrystals of hydroxyapatite can also be used in ACDF. The advantage of nanocrystalline HAp is the similarity of its crystal sizes to natural bone crystals [106,107]. This feature provides faster bony fusion and increases osteoblast proliferation [108]. Case series, described by Timothy et al., have demonstrated 100% bony fusion promotion after using HApN cages in ACDF without serious side effects. Moreover, HApN cages have shown a higher tolerance to torsion, shear, and compression forces when compared to other synthetic cages such as a PEEK [109].

3.1.4. Nanohydroxyapatite/Polyamide 66 Cages

The n-HAp/PA66 is a novel composite consisting of nanohydroxyapatite and polyamide 66, which has been recently applied in ACDF. Due to the similarity of PA66’s structure to collagen, this polymer is biocompatible with many human cells [110]. Therefore, such a composite better imitates the structure of natural bone than HAp alone. It has demonstrated good biocompatibility, osteoconduction, and safety in severe reports [111,112]. Moreover, biomechanical studies have shown similar mechanical properties of n-HAp/PA66 to that of cortical bone, especially Young’s elastic modulus, which results in lower stress shielding and better bone fusion [94,113]. A retrospective study conducted by Zhang et al. [114] has shown that the n-HAp/PA66 cage achieved a similar fusion rate in two-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and a lower rate of subsidence compared to a titanium mesh cage (TMC). Furthermore, failures of the graft are not common in the use of this material. The main disadvantage is the subsidence of the implant. Fortunately, the subsidence rate is not high and ranges from 2% to 10.6% [38,113,115,116,117,118]. Moreover, it is lower than that of the titanium mesh cage and is similar to PEEK cages [115,118]. Therefore, the n-HAp/PA66 cage has a great potential to be considered as a better alternative to PEEK cages and TMC to increase fusion rates and decrease the incidence of failures.

3.1.5. Hydroxyapatite/PEEK Cages

Regarding outcomes following ACDF, PEEK cages have demonstrated similar results compared to autograft [94], although there are objections against its osteointegration as well as problems with radiographic assessment. Osteointegrative features can be improved by adding materials characterised by osteoconductive properties such as HAp crystals. A number of techniques have been applied to transform the theoretical osteoconductive features of HAp into spinal fusion systems—from the integration of HAp with autograft to synthetic intervertebral implants [119]. Popular applications of hydroxyapatite in intervertebral cervical cages include composite, cage filler, and coating.
Chin et al. [120] have evaluated the intervertebral cage composed of 80% PEEK and 20% calcium hydroxyapatite in ACDF, as shown in Table 1. In VAS and NDI scores, they have observed significant improvement in the HAp PEEK group. Moreover, the trend towards fusion has been observed in the HAp PEEK group earlier than in the control group (3–5 months vs. 8 months). Additionally, there were no significant complications during the 12-month postoperative follow-up. Therefore, HAp PEEK cages can be effectively and safely used in ACDF with better outcomes in comparison to the PEEK cages alone.
The hydroxyapatite also can be used as a filler within the PEEK cage. In a prospective randomized study conducted by Yi et al. [119], hydroxyapatite has been used as a PEEK cage filler to improve osteoconductive properties. They compared clinical results between a PEEK cage filled with the HAp/β-TCP mixture and a PEEK cage filled with a mixture of HAp and DBM (demineralized bone marrow). β-TCP and DBM were additionally applied to provide osteoinductive properties. Comparing these two cages, clinical outcomes and fusion rates were not statistically significantly different.

3.2. Lumbar Spinal Fusion

Lumbar spinal fusion heavily relies on using autografts or allografts as a material used during surgery. Thus, they show to be the most effective way to achieve proper stabilization [39]. However, the still growing number of new materials accessible to use in this procedure creates an opportunity of lowering the negative effects of harvesting a bone graft by the usage of artificial graft material.

3.2.1. Hydroxyapatite with Beta-Tricalcium

Evaluation of hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate mixed with bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute in reference to an autologous bone graft, showing that it can be successfully used [39]. It is suggested that this technique can be used instead of autologous grafts in lumbar fixation based on fusion rates and stability of achieved fixation.
Comparisons made between implants made out of 60TCP40HA and natural bone substituted in Sprague–Dawley rats showed a different nature of bone formation between two types of material used [40]. The natural bone resulted in more peripheral bony matter formation; however, the TCP/HAp composite resulted in a more centralized process of ossification. Analysis of both groups using micro-CT resulted in another interesting observation: the percent of bone volume in the fusion region after 4 weeks showed no difference; however, after 8 weeks, the volume of TCP/HAp was about twice compared to the natural bone substitute group, which can suggest greater efficiency of TCP/HAp composite in case of ossification [Table 2].

3.2.2. Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite

Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite used in lumbar fixation shows good results as used in arthrodesis compared to autograft mixed with BMA and iliac crest autograft, after 12 months [107]. This similarity also applies to multilevel stabilization. Robbins, Stephen, et al. also reported no complications related to the posterolateral graft mass and no symptomatic nonunions. Materials made out of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 were shown to be a reliable manner of performing lumbar stabilization due to well-maintained disc height [41]. They provided a low chance of unsuccessful fusion, required no autologous bone harvesting, and showed relatively fewer postoperative morbidities, as seen in the donor region.

3.3. Pedicle Screw Fixation

Pedicle screw fixation (PSF) is regarded as the gold standard of treatment of spinal instability following traumas, degenerative changes, tumours, and deformities [121,122,123,124]. Despite many advantages of PSF [42,43], the application of this method does not exclude cases of pseudoarthrosis. Many reports have shown complications after PSF, such as loosening, pull-out, or breakage of screws [125,126,127]. To increase the rigidity of fixation, some factors are important, such as the surgical insertion technique, type of implant, augmentation method, and bone mineral density (BMD) [128]. In patients with decreased BMD, especially osteoporotic patients, there is an increased risk of screw loosening, nonunion, and back-off of the pedicle screw due to the poor mechanical properties of their bone [129,130]. Bisphosphonates and PTH, which are used in osteoporosis treatment, may prevent the mentioned complications through the increasing volume of bone substance around the screws [131]. The standard material used in PSF for improving anchoring strength is PMMA bone cement [132,133,134,135,136]. Such augmentation of titanium pedicle screws can decrease the risk of implant failures [137,138]. However, the use of PMMA causes some disadvantages, such as exothermic and toxic properties of this material or risk of cement leakage and extravasation [135,136,139,140]. Recently, different formulations of HAp have been evaluated regarding increasing fixation strength.

3.3.1. HAp Screw Coating

One of them is the HAp coating, which has proven to be an efficient method of improving the bone–implant interface. In the study with a porcine osteoporotic model, Ohe et al. [42] proved that HAp-coated titanium pedicle screws provided strong fixation at the bone–implant interface. A study conducted by Yi et al. [141] on the human cadaveric model has proven that pull-out forces of Hap-coated screws in the insertion stage were a bit lower than those with PMMA bone cement. However, HAp stimulates bone growth in contrast to PMMA. Additionally, in a group of osteoporotic patients, HAp provided greater fixation strength than PMMA. Therefore, HAp could be a better clinical alternative. Liu et al. [43] proved on a sheep model that the addition of collagen and chondroitin sulphate (CS) to HAp coating presents better outcomes in new bone formation on the screw surface than coating with HAp alone. In such a composite, HAp prevents the oxidation of the screw surface and effectively adsorbs CS and collagen. Additionally, collagen promotes bone growth by interacting with progenitor cells, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts [43]. HAp coating as augmentation in PFS is a promising method of increasing the fixation strength of the screws. However, it should be evaluated clinically in further studies.

3.3.2. HAp Sticks

HAp sticks are another formulation of HAp used in PSF. HAp, as a stick form, can be positioned at the target location without problems, distally to the screw. Moreover, in comparison to PMMA cement bone, there is no risk of material leakage. Shin et al. [142] evaluated the use of HAp sticks with PSF in patients with degenerative spine disease. They have observed that the additional use of HAp sticks increases the initial screw fixation strength in patients with osteoporosis. The effectiveness of HAp sticks also has been proven by many ex vivo and animal studies as well as clinical studies [141,143,144]. Therefore, HAp stick augmentation can reduce the frequency of the screw failure occurrence.

3.3.3. HAp Granules

The latest research, conducted by Kanno et al. [145] on osteoporotic patients, has evaluated the use of HAp granules as augmentation with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPFS). They inserted 50% porous HAp granules into the screw hole using a special device designed by themselves [146]. This study has shown that stability, pull-out strength, insertion torque, and resistance to cyclic loads of screws in the osteoporotic spine increase considerably after the addition of HAp granules. Moreover, at one-year follow-up, the incidence of screw loosening decreased.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dorozhkin, S.V. Calcium Orthophosphate Bioceramics. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 13913–13966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Balhuc, S.; Campian, R.; Labunet, A.; Negucioiu, M.; Buduru, S.; Kui, A. Dental Applications of Systems Based on Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles—An Evidence-Based Update. Crystals 2021, 11, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fiume, E.; Magnaterra, G.; Rahdar, A.; Verné, E.; Baino, F. Hydroxyapatite for Biomedical Applications: A Short Overview. Ceramics 2021, 4, 542–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Spiller, K.L.; Koh, T.J. Macrophage-Based Therapeutic Strategies in Regenerative Medicine. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2017, 122, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Werner, S.; Grose, R. Regulation of Wound Healing by Growth Factors and Cytokines. Physiol. Rev. 2003, 83, 835–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, C.; Zhao, C.; Wang, X.; Shi, M.; Zhu, Y.; Jing, L.; Wu, C.; Chang, J. Stimulation of Osteogenesis and Angiogenesis by Micro/Nano Hierarchical Hydroxyapatite via Macrophage Immunomodulation. Nanoscale 2019, 11, 17699–17708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Franz, S.; Rammelt, S.; Scharnweber, D.; Simon, J.C. Immune Responses to Implants—A Review of the Implications for the Design of Immunomodulatory Biomaterials. Biomaterials 2011, 32, 6692–6709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Anderson, J.M.; Rodriguez, A.; Chang, D.T. Foreign Body Reaction to Biomaterials. Semin. Immunol. 2008, 20, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Narducci, P.; Nicolin, V. Differentiation of Activated Monocytes into Osteoclast-like Cells on a Hydroxyapatite Substrate: An in Vitro Study. Ann. Anat. 2009, 191, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mestres, G.; Espanol, M.; Xia, W.; Persson, C.; Ginebra, M.P.; Ott, M.K. Inflammatory Response to Nano- and Microstructured Hydroxyapatite. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ekström, K.; Omar, O.; Granéli, C.; Wang, X.; Vazirisani, F.; Thomsen, P. Monocyte Exosomes Stimulate the Osteogenic Gene Expression of Mesenchymal Stem Cells. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e75227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rogina, A.; Antunović, M.; Pribolšan, L.; Caput Mihalić, K.; Vukasović, A.; Ivković, A.; Marijanović, I.; Ferrer, G.G.; Ivanković, M.; Ivanković, H. Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells Differentiation Regulated by Hydroxyapatite Content within Chitosan-Based Scaffolds under Perfusion Conditions. Polymers 2017, 9, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Barrère, F.; van Blitterswijk, C.A.; de Groot, K. Bone Regeneration: Molecular and Cellular Interactions with Calcium Phosphate Ceramics. Int. J. Nanomed. 2006, 1, 317. [Google Scholar]
  14. Von Recum, A.F.; Shannon, C.E.; Cannon, C.E.; Long, K.J.; Van Kooten, T.G.; Meyle, J. Surface Roughness, Porosity, and Texture as Modifiers of Cellular Adhesion. Tissue Eng. 1996, 2, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Suárez-González, D.; Barnhart, K.; Saito, E.; Vanderby, R.; Hollister, S.J.; Murphy, W.L. Controlled Nucleation of Hydroxyapatite on Alginate Scaffolds for Stem Cell-Based Bone Tissue Engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2010, 95, 222–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. O’Hare, P.; Meenan, B.J.; Burke, G.A.; Byrne, G.; Dowling, D.; Hunt, J.A. Biological Responses to Hydroxyapatite Surfaces Deposited via a Co-Incident Microblasting Technique. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Huang, H.Y.; Manga, Y.B.; Huang, W.N.; Lin, C.K.; Tseng, C.L.; Huang, H.M.; Wu, C.Y.; Wu, C.C. Effect of Hydroxyapatite Formation on Titanium Surface with Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 Loading through Electrochemical Deposition on MG-63 Cells. Materials 2018, 11, 1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Mucalo, M.R. Special Issue: Novel Advances and Approaches in Biomedical Materials Based on Calcium Phosphates. Materials 2019, 12, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Roberts, T.T.; Rosenbaum, A.J. Bone Grafts, Bone Substitutes and Orthobiologics: The Bridge between Basic Science and Clinical Advancements in Fracture Healing. Organogenesis 2012, 8, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Cheng, L.; Ye, F.; Yang, R.; Lu, X.; Shi, Y.; Li, L.; Fan, H.; Bu, H. Osteoinduction of Hydroxyapatite/Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Bioceramics in Mice with a Fractured Fibula. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6, 1569–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, J.; Wang, M.; Chen, F.; Wei, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhu, X.; Tu, C.; Zhang, X. Nano-Hydroxyapatite Coating Promotes Porous Calcium Phosphate Ceramic-Induced Osteogenesis Via BMP/Smad Signaling Pathway. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 7987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Ripamonti, U. Osteoinduction in Porous Hydroxyapatite Implanted in Heterotopic Sites of Different Animal Models. Biomaterials 1996, 17, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lamichhane, S.; Anderson, J.A.; Vierhout, T.; Remund, T.; Sun, H.; Kelly, P. Polytetrafluoroethylene Topographies Determine the Adhesion, Activation, and Foreign Body Giant Cell Formation of Macrophages. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2017, 105, 2441–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Su, N.; Gao, P.L.; Wang, K.; Wang, J.Y.; Zhong, Y.; Luo, Y. Fibrous Scaffolds Potentiate the Paracrine Function of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A New Dimension in Cell-Material Interaction. Biomaterials 2017, 141, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Miron, R.J.; Zhang, Y.F. Osteoinduction: A Review of Old Concepts with New Standards. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 736–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Infante, A.; Rodríguez, C.I. Osteogenesis and Aging: Lessons from Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2018, 9, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Lytkina, D.; Gutsalova, A.; Fedorishin, D.; Korotchenko, N.; Akhmedzhanov, R.; Kozik, V.; Kurzina, I. Synthesis and Properties of Zinc-Modified Hydroxyapatite. J. Funct. Biomater. 2020, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bystrova, A.V.; Dekhtyar, Y.D.; Popov, A.I.; Coutinho, J.; Bystrov, V.S. Modified Hydroxyapatite Structure and Properties: Modeling and Synchrotron Data Analysis of Modified Hydroxyapatite Structure. Ferroelectrics 2015, 475, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hübner, W.; Blume, A.; Pushnjakova, R.; Dekhtyar, Y.; Hein, H.J. The Influence of X-Ray Radiation on the Mineral/Organic Matrix Interaction of Bone Tissue: An FT-IR Microscopic Investigation. Int. J. Artif. Organs 2005, 28, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Freitas Costa, N.; Melo, B.R.; Brito, R.T.; de Oliveira Fernandes, M.B.; Bernardo, V.G.; Fonseca, E.C.; Conz, M.B.; Soares, G.A.; Granjeiro, J.M. Quality and Intensity of the Tissue Response to Two Synthetic Granular Hydroxyapatite Implanted in Critical Defects of Rat Calvaria. Mater. Res. 2009, 12, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Sadowska, J.M.; Wei, F.; Guo, J.; Guillem-Marti, J.; Ginebra, M.P.; Xiao, Y. Effect of Nano-Structural Properties of Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite on Osteoimmunomodulation. Biomaterials 2018, 181, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Laquerriere, P.; Grandjean-Laquerriere, A.; Jallot, E.; Balossier, G.; Frayssinet, P.; Guenounou, M. Importance of Hydroxyapatite Particles Characteristics on Cytokines Production by Human Monocytes in Vitro. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 2739–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lebre, F.; Sridharan, R.; Sawkins, M.J.; Kelly, D.J.; O’Brien, F.J.; Lavelle, E.C. The Shape and Size of Hydroxyapatite Particles Dictate Inflammatory Responses Following Implantation. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 2922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Aktuğ, S.L.; Durdu, S.; Yalçın, E.; Çavuşoğlu, K.; Usta, M. Bioactivity and Biocompatibility of Hydroxyapatite-Based Bioceramic Coatings on Zirconium by Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2017, 71, 1020–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gulati, K.; Hamlet, S.M.; Ivanovski, S. Tailoring the Immuno-Responsiveness of Anodized Nano-Engineered Titanium Implants. J. Mater. Chem. B 2018, 6, 2677–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Venkatesan, J.; Kim, S.K. Nano-Hydroxyapatite Composite Biomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering—A Review. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2014, 10, 3124–3140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, X.; Liu, M.; Chen, F.; Wang, Y.; Wang, M.; Chen, X.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, X. Design of Hydroxyapatite Bioceramics with Micro-/Nano-Topographies to Regulate the Osteogenic Activities of Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 and Bone Marrow Stromal Cells. Nanoscale 2020, 12, 7284–7300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, Y.; Deng, X.; Jiang, D.; Luo, X.; Tang, K.; Zhao, Z.; Zhong, W.; Lei, T.; Quan, Z. Long-Term Results of Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion with Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide 66 Strut for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 26751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bansal, S.; Chauhan, V.; Sharma, S.; Maheshwari, R.; Juyal, A.; Raghuvanshi, S. Evaluation of Hydroxyapatite and Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Mixed with Bone Marrow Aspirate as a Bone Graft Substitute for Posterolateral Spinal Fusion. Indian J. Orthop. 2009, 43, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, J.H.; Ryu, M.Y.; Baek, H.R.; Lee, K.M.; Seo, J.H.; Lee, H.K. Fabrication and Evaluation of Porous Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate/Hydroxyapatite (60/40) Composite as a Bone Graft Extender Using Rat Calvarial Bone Defect Model. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 481789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hu, J.; Ou, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Luo, W.; Zhao, Z.; Du, X.; Li, J. Effectiveness of Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide-66 Cage in Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2019, 33, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ohe, M.; Moridaira, H.; Inami, S.; Takeuchi, D.; Nohara, Y.; Taneichi, H. Pedicle Screws with a Thin Hydroxyapatite Coating for Improving Fixation at the Bone-Implant Interface in the Osteoporotic Spine: Experimental Study in a Porcine Model. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2018, 28, 679–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Liu, G.M.; Kong, N.; Zhang, X.Y.; Bai, H.T.; Yao, Y.; Han, H.Z.; Luo, Y.G. Extracellular Matrix-Coating Pedicle Screws Conduct and Induce Osteogenesis. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2014, 24 (Suppl. S1), 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chen, Z.; Klein, T.; Murray, R.Z.; Crawford, R.; Chang, J.; Wu, C.; Xiao, Y. Osteoimmunomodulation for the Development of Advanced Bone Biomaterials. Mater. Today 2016, 19, 304–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Kzhyshkowska, J.; Gudima, A.; Riabov, V.; Dollinger, C.; Lavalle, P.; Vrana, N.E. Macrophage Responses to Implants: Prospects for Personalized Medicine. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2015, 98, 953–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Lee, W.H.; Zavgorodniy, A.V.; Loo, C.Y.; Rohanizadeh, R. Synthesis and Characterization of Hydroxyapatite with Different Crystallinity: Effects on Protein Adsorption and Release. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2012, 100A, 1539–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yin, G.; Liu, Z.; Zhan, J.; Ding, F.; Yuan, N. Impacts of the Surface Charge Property on Protein Adsorption on Hydroxyapatite. Chem. Eng. J. 2002, 87, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fernández-Montes Moraleda, B.; Román, J.S.; Rodríguez-Lorenzo, L.M. Influence of Surface Features of Hydroxyapatite on the Adsorption of Proteins Relevant to Bone Regeneration. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2013, 101A, 2332–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Broughton, G.; Janis, J.E.; Attinger, C.E. The Basic Science of Wound Healing. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2006, 117, 12S–34S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ridiandries, A.; Tan, J.T.M.; Bursill, C.A. The Role of Chemokines in Wound Healing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Wynn, T.A.; Vannella, K.M. Macrophages in Tissue Repair, Regeneration, and Fibrosis. Immunity 2016, 44, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Novak, M.L.; Koh, T.J. Macrophage Phenotypes during Tissue Repair. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2013, 93, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Yamaguchi, T.; Movila, A.; Kataoka, S.; Wisitrasameewong, W.; Torruella, M.R.; Murakoshi, M.; Murakami, S.; Kawai, T. Proinflammatory M1 Macrophages Inhibit RANKL-Induced Osteoclastogenesis. Infect. Immun. 2016, 84, 2802–2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Huang, R.; Wang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Xiao, Y. RANKL-Induced M1 Macrophages Are Involved in Bone Formation. Bone Res. 2017, 5, 17019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Medhat, D.; Rodríguez, C.I.; Infante, A. Immunomodulatory Effects of MSCs in Bone Healing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Sridharan, R.; Cameron, A.R.; Kelly, D.J.; Kearney, C.J.; O’Brien, F.J. Biomaterial Based Modulation of Macrophage Polarization: A Review and Suggested Design Principles. Mater. Today 2015, 18, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sadowska, J.M.; Wei, F.; Guo, J.; Guillem-Marti, J.; Lin, Z.; Ginebra, M.P.; Xiao, Y. The Effect of Biomimetic Calcium Deficient Hydroxyapatite and Sintered β-Tricalcium Phosphate on Osteoimmune Reaction and Osteogenesis. Acta Biomater. 2019, 96, 605–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, L.X.; Zhang, S.X.; Wu, H.J.; Rong, X.L.; Guo, J. M2b Macrophage Polarization and Its Roles in Diseases. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2019, 106, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Lee, C.; Jeong, H.; Lee, H.; Hong, M.; Park, S.Y.; Bae, H. Magnolol Attenuates Cisplatin-Induced Muscle Wasting by M2c Macrophage Activation. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Zhang, L.; Ding, Y.; Rao, G.Z.; Miao, D. Effects of IL-10 and Glucose on Expression of OPG and RANKL in Human Periodontal Ligament Fibroblasts. Brazilian J. Med. Biol. Res. 2016, 49, e4324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Gulati, K.; Moon, H.J.; Li, T.; Sudheesh Kumar, P.T.; Ivanovski, S. Titania Nanopores with Dual Micro-/Nano-Topography for Selective Cellular Bioactivity. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2018, 91, 624–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Rostam, H.M.; Fisher, L.E.; Hook, A.L.; Burroughs, L.; Luckett, J.C.; Figueredo, G.P.; Mbadugha, C.; Teo, A.C.K.; Latif, A.; Kämmerling, L.; et al. Immune-Instructive Polymers Control Macrophage Phenotype and Modulate the Foreign Body Response In Vivo. Matter 2020, 2, 1564–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pan, L.; Zhao, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Qin, G. Research Advances on Structure and Biological Functions of Integrins. Springerplus 2016, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Wang, J.; Dong, X.; Zhao, B.; Li, J.; Lu, C.; Springer, T.A. Atypical Interactions of Integrin Avβ8 with Pro-TGF-Β1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E4168–E4174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Berton, G.; Lowell, C.A. Integrin Signalling in Neutrophils and Macrophages. Cell. Signal. 1999, 11, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kilpadi, K.L.; Chang, P.-L.; Bellis, S.L. Hydroxylapatite Binds More Serum Proteins, Purified Integrins, and Osteoblast Precursor Cells than Titanium or Steel. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2001, 57, 258–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Horbett, T.A.; Latour, R.A. Adsorbed Proteins on Biomaterials. Biomater. Sci. 2020, 645–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rivera-Chacon, D.M.; Alvarado-Velez, M.; Acevedo-Morantes, C.Y.; Singh, S.P.; Gultepe, E.; Nagesha, D.; Sridhar, S.; Ramirez-Vick, J.E. Fibronectin and Vitronectin Promote Human Fetal Osteoblast Cell Attachment and Proliferation on Nanoporous Titanium Surfaces. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2013, 9, 1092–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Benito-Jardón, M.; Klapproth, S.; Gimeno-Lluch, I.; Petzold, T.; Bharadwaj, M.; Müller, D.J.; Zuchtriegel, G.; Reichel, C.A.; Costell, M. The Fibronectin Synergy Site Re-Enforces Cell Adhesion and Mediates a Crosstalk between Integrin Classes. Elife 2017, 6, e22264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, Y.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, L.; Yan, J.; Shao, C.; Jing, L.; Li, L.; Wang, Z. Role of Macrophages in the Progression and Regression of Vascular Calcification. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pagani, G.; Gohlke, H. On the Contributing Role of the Transmembrane Domain for Subunit-Specific Sensitivity of Integrin Activation. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. López-Colomé, A.M.; Lee-Rivera, I.; Benavides-Hidalgo, R.; López, E. Paxillin: A Crossroad in Pathological Cell Migration. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2017, 10, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Tanimura, S.; Takeda, K. ERK Signalling as a Regulator of Cell Motility. J. Biochem. 2017, 162, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Subauste, M.C.; Pertz, O.; Adamson, E.D.; Turner, C.E.; Junger, S.; Hahn, K.M. Vinculin Modulation of Paxillin–FAK Interactions Regulates ERK to Control Survival and Motility. J. Cell Biol. 2004, 165, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rodríguez-Carballo, E.; Gámez, B.; Ventura, F. P38 MAPK Signaling in Osteoblast Differentiation. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2016, 4, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Franceschi, R.T.; Ge, C. Control of the Osteoblast Lineage by Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Signaling. Curr. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2017, 3, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kang, M.A.; Lee, J.; Park, S.H. Cannabidiol Induces Osteoblast Differentiation via Angiopoietin1 and P38 MAPK. Environ. Toxicol. 2020, 35, 1318–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shen, M.J.; Wang, G.G.; Wang, Y.Z.; Xie, J.; Ding, X. Nell-1 Enhances Osteogenic Differentiation of Pre-Osteoblasts on Titanium Surfaces via the MAPK-ERK Signaling Pathway. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 50, 1522–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cong, Q.; Jia, H.; Biswas, S.; Li, P.; Qiu, S.; Deng, Q.; Guo, X.; Ma, G.; Ling Chau, J.F.; Wang, Y.; et al. P38α MAPK Regulates Lineage Commitment and OPG Synthesis of Bone Marrow Stromal Cells to Prevent Bone Loss under Physiological and Pathological Conditions. Stem Cell Rep. 2016, 6, 566–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Anghelescu, V.M.; Neculae, I.; Dincă, O.; Vlădan, C.; Socoliuc, C.; Cioplea, M.; Nichita, L.; Popp, C.; Zurac, S.; Bucur, A. Inflammatory-Driven Angiogenesis in Bone Augmentation with Bovine Hydroxyapatite, B-Tricalcium Phosphate, and Bioglasses: A Comparative Study. J. Immunol. Res. 2018, 2018, 9349207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Wang, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, X.; Yuan, T.; Tan, Y.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, X. Effect of Phase Composition on Protein Adsorption and Osteoinduction of Porous Calcium Phosphate Ceramics in Mice. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2014, 102, 4234–4243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Guntur, A.R.; Rosen, C.J. IGF-1 Regulation of Key Signaling Pathways in Bone. Bonekey Rep. 2013, 2, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Ashraf, S.; Cha, B.H.; Kim, J.S.; Ahn, J.; Han, I.; Park, H.; Lee, S.H. Regulation of Senescence Associated Signaling Mechanisms in Chondrocytes for Cartilage Tissue Regeneration. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2016, 24, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Albrektsson, T.; Johansson, C. Osteoinduction, Osteoconduction and Osseointegration. Eur. Spine J. 2001, 10 (Suppl. S2), S96–S101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Dong, P.; Zhu, D.; Deng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, J.; Sun, X.; Liu, Y. Effect of Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles and Wedelolactone on Osteoblastogenesis from Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2019, 107, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kim, J.M.; Yang, Y.S.; Park, K.H.; Ge, X.; Xu, R.; Li, N.; Song, M.; Chun, H.; Bok, S.; Charles, J.F.; et al. A RUNX2 Stabilization Pathway Mediates Physiologic and Pathologic Bone Formation. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Campi, G.; Cristofaro, F.; Pani, G.; Fratini, M.; Pascucci, B.; Corsetto, P.A.; Weinhausen, B.; Cedola, A.; Rizzo, A.M.; Visai, L.; et al. Heterogeneous and Self-Organizing Mineralization of Bone Matrix Promoted by Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles. Nanoscale 2017, 9, 17274–17283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Köllmer, M.; Buhrman, J.S.; Zhang, Y.; Gemeinhart, R.A. Markers Are Shared Between Adipogenic and Osteogenic Differentiated Mesenchymal Stem Cells. J. Dev. Biol. Tissue Eng. 2013, 5, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Si, J.; Wang, C.; Zhang, D.; Wang, B.; Hou, W.; Zhou, Y. Osteopontin in Bone Metabolism and Bone Diseases. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020, 26, e919159-1–e919159-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Brown, M.D.; Malinin, T.I.; Davis, P.B. A Roentgenographic Evaluation of Frozen Allografts versus Autografts in Anterior Cervical Spine Fusions. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1976, 119, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kim, P.; Wakai, S.; Matsuo, S.; Moriyama, T.; Kirino, T. Bisegmental Cervical Interbody Fusion Using Hydroxyapatite Implants: Surgical Results and Long-Term Observation in 70 Cases. J. Neurosurg. 1998, 88, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Chul Kim, S.; Won Kang, S.; Hyuk Kim, S.; Hong Cho, K.; Hyun Kim, S. Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Interbody Fusion Using Hydroxyapatite Spacer. J Korean Neurosurg 2009, 46, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wen, Z.; Lu, T.; Wang, Y.; Liang, H.; Gao, Z.; He, X. Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Titanium Mesh Cages for Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Pathologies: A Literature Review. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018, 24, 6398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Kersten, R.F.M.R.; Van Gaalen, S.M.; De Gast, A.; Öner, F.C. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cages in Cervical Applications: A Systematic Review. Spine J. 2015, 15, 1446–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Cawley, D.T.; Alzakri, A.; Fujishiro, T.; Kieser, D.C.; Tavalaro, C.; Boissiere, L.; Obeid, I.; Pointillart, V.; Vital, J.M.; Gille, O. Carbon-Fibre Cage Reconstruction in Anterior Cervical Corpectomy for Multilevel Cervical Spondylosis: Mid-Term Outcomes. J. Spine Surg. 2019, 5, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yoshii, T.; Yuasa, M.; Sotome, S.; Yamada, T.; Sakaki, K.; Hirai, T.; Taniyama, T.; Inose, H.; Kato, T.; Arai, Y.; et al. Porous/Dense Composite Hydroxyapatite for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Spine 2013, 38, 833–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Yoshii, T.; Hirai, T.; Sakai, K.; Sotome, S.; Enomoto, M.; Yamada, T.; Inose, H.; Kato, T.; Kawabata, S.; Okawa, A. Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion Using a Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Graft for Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament. Orthopedics 2017, 40, e334–e339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Suetsuna, F.; Yokoyama, T.; Kenuka, E.; Harata, S. Anterior Cervical Fusion Using Porous Hydroxyapatite Ceramics for Cervical Disc Herniation: A Two-Year Follow-Up. Spine J. 2001, 1, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Emery, S.; Bolesta, M.; Banks, M.; Jones, P. Robinson Anterior Cervical Fusion Comparison of the Standard and Modified Techniques. Spine 1994, 19, 660–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gruskin, E.; Doll, B.A.; Futrell, F.W.; Schmitz, J.P.; Hollinger, J.O. Demineralized Bone Matrix in Bone Repair: History and Use. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2012, 64, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Aghdasi, B.; Montgomery, S.R.; Daubs, M.D.; Wang, J.C. A Review of Demineralized Bone Matrices for Spinal Fusion: The Evidence for Efficacy. Surgeon 2013, 11, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Fischer, C.R.; Cassilly, R.; Cantor, W.; Edusei, E.; Hammouri, Q.; Errico, T. A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies on Bone Graft Alternatives for Common Spine Fusion Procedures. Eur. Spine J. 2013, 22, 1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. De Silva, R.; Pasbakhsh, P.; Qureshi, A.J.; Gibson, A.G.; Goh, K.L. Stress Transfer and Fracture in Nanostructured Particulate-Reinforced Chitosan Biopolymer Composites: Influence of Interfacial Shear Stress and Particle Slenderness. Compos. Interfaces 2014, 21, 807–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Xie, J.Z.; Hein, S.; Wang, K.; Liao, K.; Goh, K.L. Influence of Hydroxyapatite Crystallization Temperature and Concentration on Stress Transfer in Wet-Spun Nanohydroxyapatite-Chitosan Composite Fibres. Biomed. Mater. 2008, 3, 025014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Thalgott, J.S.; Fritts, K.; Giuffre, J.M.; Timlin, M. Anterior Interbody Fusion of the Cervical Spine with Coralline Hydroxyapatite. Spine 1999, 24, 1295–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Qin, Z.; Gautieri, A.; Nair, A.K.; Inbar, H.; Buehler, M.J. Thickness of Hydroxyapatite Nanocrystal Controls Mechanical Properties of the Collagen-Hydroxyapatite Interface. Langmuir 2012, 28, 1982–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Robbins, S.; Lauryssen, C.; Songer, M.N. Use of Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite With Autologous BMA and Local Bone in the Lumbar Spine: A Retrospective CT Analysis of Posterolateral Fusion Results. Clin. Spine Surg. 2017, 30, E192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dorozhkin, S.V. Calcium Orthophosphate Coatings on Magnesium and Its Biodegradable Alloys. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 2919–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Timothy, J.; Wilson, J.; Rice, E.; Hall, R. Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite Intervertebral Cages Induce Fusion after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and May Be a Safe Alternative to PEEK or Carbon Fiber Intervertebral Cages. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2016, 30, 654–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Upadhyay, D.J.; Cui, N.Y.; Anderson, C.A.; Brown, N.M.D. A Comparative Study of the Surface Activation of Polyamides Using an Air Dielectric Barrier Discharge. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2004, 248, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Zuo, Y.; Li, J.; Ma, S.; Cheng, L. Biocompatibility and Osteogenesis of Biomimetic Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide Composite Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 3338–3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Wei, G.; Ma, P.X. Structure and Properties of Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polymer Composite Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 4749–4757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Yang, X.; Chen, Q.; Liu, L.; Song, Y.; Kong, Q.; Zeng, J.; Xue, Y.; Ren, C. Comparison of Anterior Cervical Fusion by Titanium Mesh Cage versus Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide Cage Following Single-Level Corpectomy. Int. Orthop. 2013, 37, 2421–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Zhang, C.; Qiu, Z.Y.; Zhang, W.Q.; Cui, H.; Wang, C.M.; Guo, W.G.; Dong, Y.Q.; Cui, F.Z. In Vivo Evaluation of Nano-Crystal Hydroxyapatite Intervertebral Fusion Cage. J. Biomater. Tissue Eng. 2014, 4, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hu, B.; Yang, X.; Hu, Y.; Lyu, Q.; Liu, L.; Zhu, C.; Zhou, C.; Song, Y. The N-HAp/PA66 Cage Versus the PEEK Cage in Anterior Cervical Fusion with Single-Level Discectomy During 7 Years of Follow-Up. World Neurosurg. 2019, 123, e678–e684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yang, X.; Liu, L.; Song, Y.; Kong, Q.; Zeng, J.; Tu, C. Outcome of Single Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide-66 Cage. Indian J. Orthop. 2014, 48, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Zhao, Z.; Jiang, D.; Ou, Y.; Tang, K.; Luo, X.; Quan, Z. A Hollow Cylindrical Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide Composite Strut for Cervical Reconstruction after Cervical Corpectomy. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2012, 19, 536–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhang, Y.; Quan, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Luo, X.; Tang, K.; Li, J.; Zhou, X.; Jiang, D. Evaluation of Anterior Cervical Reconstruction with Titanium Mesh Cages versus Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide66 Cages after 1- Or 2-Level Corpectomy for Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Retrospective Study of 117 Patients. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Yi, J.; Lee, G.W.; Nam, W.D.; Han, K.Y.; Kim, M.-H.; Kang, J.W.; Won, J.; Kim, S.W.; Noh, W.; Yeom, J.S. A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Bone Union Rate Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using a Polyetheretherketone Cage: Hydroxyapatite/B-Tricalcium Phosphate Mixture versus Hydroxyapatite/Demineralized Bone Matrix Mixture. Asian Spine J. 2015, 9, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Chin, K.R.; Gohel, N.N.; Aloise, D.M.; Seale, J.A.; Pandey, D.K.; Pencle, F.J. Effectiveness of a Fully Impregnated Hydroxyapatite Polyetheretherketone Cage on Fusion in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery. Cureus 2021, 13, e17457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Moussazadeh, N.; Rubin, D.G.; McLaughlin, L.; Lis, E.; Bilsky, M.H.; Laufer, I. Short-Segment Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Cement Augmentation for Tumor-Induced Spinal Instability. Spine J. 2015, 15, 1609–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Miyashita, T.; Ataka, H.; Kato, K.; Tanno, T. Good Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rate of Facet Fusion With a Percutaneous Pedicle Screw System for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Spine 2015, 40, E552–E557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Proietti, L.; Scaramuzzo, L.; Schirò, G.R.; Sessa, S.; D’Aurizio, G.; Tamburrelli, F.C. Posterior Percutaneous Reduction and Fixation of Thoraco-Lumbar Burst Fractures. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2014, 100, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Cheung, W.Y.; Lenke, L.G.; Luk, K.D.K. Prediction of Scoliosis Correction With Thoracic Segmental Pedicle Screw Constructs Using Fulcrum Bending Radiographs. Spine 2010, 35, 557–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Shimamoto, N.; Kotani, Y.; Shono, Y.; Kadoya, K.; Abumi, K.; Kaneda, K.; Minami, A. Biomechanical Evaluation of Anterior Spinal Instrumentation Systems for Scoliosis. Spine 2001, 26, 2701–2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Renner, S.M.; Lim, T.H.; Kim, W.J.; Katolik, L.; An, H.S.; Andersson, G.B.J. Augmentation of Pedicle Screw Fixation Strength Using an Injectable Calcium Phosphate Cement as a Function of Injection Timing and Method. Spine 2004, 29, E212–E216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Di Lorenzo, N.; Conti, R.; Romoli, S. Retrieval of Broken Pedicle Screws by “friction” Technique: Technical Note. J. Neurosurg. 2000, 92 (Suppl. S1), 114–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Berlemann, U.; Cripton, P.A.; Rincon, L.; Nolte, L.P.; Schläpfer, F. Pull-out Strength of Pedicle Hooks with Fixation Screws: Influence of Screw Length and Angulation. Eur. Spine J. 1996, 5, 71–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Lehman, R.A.; Kang, D.G.; Wagner, S.C. Management of Osteoporosis in Spine Surgery. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2015, 23, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Giavaresi, G.; Fini, M.; Giardino, R.; Salamanna, F.; Sartori, M.; Borsari, V.; Spriano, S.; Bellini, C.M.; Brayda-Bruno, M. In Vivo Preclinical Evaluation of the Influence of Osteoporosis on the Anchorage of Different Pedicle Screw Designs. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 1289–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Ohtori, S.; Inoue, G.; Orita, S.; Yamauchi, K.; Eguchi, Y.; Ochiai, N.; Kishida, S.; Kuniyoshi, K.; Aoki, Y.; Nakamura, J.; et al. Comparison of Teriparatide and Bisphosphonate Treatment to Reduce Pedicle Screw Loosening after Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis from a Bone Quality Perspective. Spine 2013, 38, E487–E492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Burval, D.J.; McLain, R.F.; Milks, R.; Inceoglu, S. Primary Pedicle Screw Augmentation in Osteoporotic Lumbar Vertebrae. Spine 2007, 32, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Liu, D.; Wu, Z.X.; Pan, X.M.; Fu, S.C.; Gao, M.X.; Shi, L.; Lei, W. Biomechanical Comparison of Different Techniques in Primary Spinal Surgery in Osteoporotic Cadaveric Lumbar Vertebrae: Expansive Pedicle Screw versus Polymethylmethacrylate-Augmented Pedicle Screw. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2011, 131, 1227–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Frankel, B.M.; D’Agostino, S.; Wang, C. A Biomechanical Cadaveric Analysis of Polymethylmethacrylate-Augmented Pedicle Screw Fixation. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2007, 7, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Wu, Z.X.; Gong, F.T.; Liu, L.; Ma, Z.S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Yang, M.; Lei, W.; Sang, H.X. A Comparative Study on Screw Loosening in Osteoporotic Lumbar Spine Fusion between Expandable and Conventional Pedicle Screws. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2012, 132, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Xie, Y.; Fu, Q.; Chen, Z.Q.; Shi, Z.C.; Zhu, X.D.; Wang, C.F.; Li, M. Comparison between Two Pedicle Screw Augmentation Instrumentations in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis with Osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2011, 12, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Koller, H.; Zenner, J.; Hitzl, W.; Resch, H.; Stephan, D.; Augat, P.; Penzkofer, R.; Korn, G.; Kendell, A.; Meier, O.; et al. The Impact of a Distal Expansion Mechanism Added to a Standard Pedicle Screw on Pullout Resistance. A Biomechanical Study. Spine J. 2013, 13, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Becker, S.; Chavanne, A.; Spitaler, R.; Kropik, K.; Aigner, N.; Ogon, M.; Redl, H. Assessment of Different Screw Augmentation Techniques and Screw Designs in Osteoporotic Spines. Eur. Spine J. 2008, 17, 1462–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Galbusera, F.; Volkheimer, D.; Reitmaier, S.; Berger-Roscher, N.; Kienle, A.; Wilke, H.J. Pedicle Screw Loosening: A Clinically Relevant Complication? Eur. Spine J. 2015, 24, 1005–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Elder, B.D.; Lo, S.F.L.; Holmes, C.; Goodwin, C.R.; Kosztowski, T.A.; Lina, I.A.; Locke, J.E.; Witham, T.F. The Biomechanics of Pedicle Screw Augmentation with Cement. Spine J. 2015, 15, 1432–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Yi, S.; Rim, D.C.; Park, S.W.; Murovic, J.A.; Lim, J.; Park, J. Biomechanical Comparisons of Pull Out Strengths After Pedicle Screw Augmentation with Hydroxyapatite, Calcium Phosphate, or Polymethylmethacrylate in the Cadaveric Spine. World Neurosurg. 2015, 83, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Shin, S.J.; Lee, J.-H.; Lee, J.H. Influence of Hydroxyapatite Stick on Pedicle Screw Fixation in Degenerative Lumbar Spine. Clin. Spine Surg. 2017, 30, E819–E826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Kim, Y.S.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, K.H.; Jhin, M.J.; Kim, W.K.; Lee, Y.K.; Seol, Y.J.; Lee, Y.M. Rabbit Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Model with Simultaneous Implant Placement: Differential Responses to the Graft Materials. J. Periodontal Implant. Sci. 2012, 42, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kirchhoff, M.; Lenz, S.; Henkel, K.O.; Frerich, B.; Holzhüter, G.; Radefeldt, S.; Gerber, T. Lateral Augmentation of the Mandible in Minipigs with a Synthetic Nanostructured Hydroxyapatite Block. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2011, 96B, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kanno, H.; Aizawa, T.; Hashimoto, K.; Itoi, E. Novel Augmentation Technique of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation Using Hydroxyapatite Granules in the Osteoporotic Lumbar Spine: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Analysis. Eur. Spine J. 2020, 30, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Kanno, H.; Aizawa, T.; Hashimoto, K.; Itoi, E. Enhancing Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Hydroxyapatite Granules: A Biomechanical Study Using an Osteoporotic Bone Model. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Comparison of the hydroxyapatite cages with other cages used in ACDF.
Table 1. Comparison of the hydroxyapatite cages with other cages used in ACDF.
Type of CageMaterialFusion RateTime to Achieve Solid FusionSubsidence RateDisadvantages
AutograftNatural bone harvested from iliac bone85–100% [102]~6 months [96]~0% [96]morbidity at the donor site, increased blood loss, limited amount
Standard cages
TMC CageTitanium94–96% [113,118]5–7 months [93]From 4 to 22% [93,113,115]difficulty in radiographic assessment, stress shielding effect [93,113]
PEEK CagePolyetheretherketone88–100% [94]7–8 months [120]From 9.8% to 14.3% [115]lack of osteointegration of the cage, difficulty in radiographic assessment [94]
Hydroxyapatite cages
nHA/PA66 CageNanohydroxyapatite infiltrating into polyamide 6697%–98% [113,115,118]-From 2 to 10.6% [38,113,115,116,117,118]difficult radiographic assessment of solid fusion, but easier compared with TMC [113]
Hydroxyapatite/PEEK CageComposite of 80% PEEK and 20% calcium hydroxyapatite~100% [120]3–5 months [120]-lack of clinical studies, difficulty in radiographic assessment
Table
Table 2. Formulations of HAp used in spine surgery.
Table 2. Formulations of HAp used in spine surgery.
ProcedureHAp Formulation
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and FusionNanohydroxyapatite
Nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 composite
Hydroxyapatite/PEEK coating
Hydroxyapatite/PEEK composite
Lumbar Spinal FusionHydroxyapatite/beta-TCP
Nanohydroxyapatite
Pedicle Screw FixationHydroxyapatite screw coating
Hydroxyapatite sticks
Hydroxyapatite granules
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Litak, J.; Czyzewski, W.; Szymoniuk, M.; Pastuszak, B.; Litak, J.; Litak, G.; Grochowski, C.; Rahnama-Hezavah, M.; Kamieniak, P. Hydroxyapatite Use in Spine Surgery—Molecular and Clinical Aspect. Materials 2022, 15, 2906. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082906

AMA Style

Litak J, Czyzewski W, Szymoniuk M, Pastuszak B, Litak J, Litak G, Grochowski C, Rahnama-Hezavah M, Kamieniak P. Hydroxyapatite Use in Spine Surgery—Molecular and Clinical Aspect. Materials. 2022; 15(8):2906. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082906

Chicago/Turabian Style

Litak, Jakub, Wojciech Czyzewski, Michał Szymoniuk, Bartlomiej Pastuszak, Joanna Litak, Grzegorz Litak, Cezary Grochowski, Mansur Rahnama-Hezavah, and Piotr Kamieniak. 2022. "Hydroxyapatite Use in Spine Surgery—Molecular and Clinical Aspect" Materials 15, no. 8: 2906. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082906

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop