 |
|
|
Vol. 285 No. 5, February 7, 2001 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research Opportunities for Specific Diseases and Disorders |
|
|
|
Musculoskeletal Disorders and Orthopedic Conditions
Adele L. Boskey, PhD
JAMA. 2001;285:619-623.
ABSTRACT
Ongoing advances in orthopedics include discoveries of functions of matrix proteins, development of new implant materials that are more durable and more compatible with magnetic resonance imaging, and identification of genes causing musculoskeletal disorders and disease. The Human Genome Project will further clarify the genetic basis of specific musculoskeletal disorders, enhancing risk factor identification, diagnosis, and therapy. Engineered, cell-based materials will replace metals and plastics in implants, and new composite materials will promote bone in-growth.
The Scope of the Problem
The United Nations has declared the years 2000-2010 the "Bone and Joint Decade"1 to draw attention to the increasing impact orthopedic conditions will have on world health as life expectancy increases and to the potential for eliminating these problems through current and future research advances. A survey by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons2 reported that 3 million musculoskeletal and orthopedic procedures were performed in US hospitals in 1995, including those for fractures (15%), joint problems (22%), and spinal disorders (12%). An additional 4.3 million musculoskeletal procedures were performed in outpatient settings.
Musculoskeletal disorders, of which osteoarthritis and back pain are most common, cost approximately $215 billion each year in health care costs and loss of economic productivity.2 Trauma and congenital abnormalities dominate in children and adolescents, whereas in ages 18 through 44 years hospitalizations are mainly for back disorders and knee or other joint problems. In those aged 45 through 65 years, osteoarthritis and spondylosis increase in frequency. Fractures cause more hospitalizations in those aged 65 years and older, accounting for 62% of all musculoskeletal-related hospitalizations in those older than 85 years. Osteoporosis-associated fractures alone are estimated to have cost $14 billion in 1995.2 However, improvements in diagnostic modalities, imaging techniques, therapeutics, and orthopedic devices will alter these patterns.
Major Advances in the Past 25 Years
Between 1975 and 2000, advances in cell and molecular biology as well as advances in design and materials revolutionized orthopedic science.39-40 These advances, coupled with those in surgery and health care delivery, changed practice patterns drastically. (Figure A)
|
|
|
|
Basic Science Discoveries Translated to Orthopedic Interventions
|
|
|
The course of progress can be illustrated by total joint arthroplasty. Designs for hip, knee, shoulder, and other joint replacements increased in numbers beginning in the 1960s but over time infection, device breakage, loosening, wear, and wear-debris-induced bone resorption (osteolysis) became apparent, and with these, the need for revision.41-44 Infection has largely been controlled through improved surgical and aseptic techniques and prophylactic antibiotics, but infections remain a serious (and costly) problem for affected individuals. Device breakage has been all but eliminated through new implant design. Aseptic loosening has been reduced through improved surgical techniques. Wear of plastic parts continues to be a problem, although recent development of low-wear materials promises to minimize this problem. Newer implant materials (eg, titanium and titanium alloys) reduce artifacts associated with magnetic resonance imaging of other metallic materials, facilitating monitoring. The biology of debris-induced osteolysis is being investigated, and current therapies reduce bone resorption37, 45 and the risk of implant failure.
A second illustration of the basic science revolution in orthopedic surgery comes from the use of mouse models26-28 to facilitate identification of genes that cause musculoskeletal deformities and disease. In addition to accelerating gene identification, mice with altered genes provide models for evaluating therapeutics and new clues into the origin of developmental abnormalities. Gene identification and proteomics (the study of protein function) are increasing at an exponential rate. While in the past 25 years the emphasis was on developing techniques for protein isolation,46 gene sequencing, and cloning,47 in the last few years the emphasis has turned to determining the function of these proteins48 and to the development of novel interventions.
Current Scientific Foundation
The Human Genome Project49 will markedly clarify the genetic basis of specific musculoskeletal diseases, and emerging technology will soon allow predictive genes to be identified prior to disease presentation. The major advances will come in functional genomics, as the functions of musculoskeletal genes are elucidated.50 "Gene chips" may soon be available to provide specific genetic information on musculoskeletal diseases. These high-density arrays of oligonucleotides (currently available with thousands of known gene sequences) can rapidly detect the presence of normal and modified genes in a serum extract.50 The 21st-century orthopedic surgeon will likely determine if a patient with a fracture has any mutation regulating cell proliferation, matrix protein production, or other factors placing him or her at risk for nonunion. Similarly, surgeons will be able to review genetic analyses and select therapeutic modalities based on factors for rapid (or slow) degeneration of cartilage, osteoporosis, or other bone, joint, and muscle diseases.
In the last few years, master genes controlling the development of bone and cartilage have been identified,51-54 and new drug discovery, intimately coupled to molecular understanding,47 is revolutionizing orthopedic practice. Evolving pharmaceuticals provide highly targeted (specific) drugs that affect specific biochemical pathways, rather than multiple pathways in which drugs have unintended effects.55 These advances have been made possible by studies of cell behavior and facilitated by studies of biochemical pathways at the level of genes and proteins.56 Even more specific drugs will emerge in the future. To illustrate, in 1998 a protein that controls differentiation and activation of bone resorbing osteoclasts (osteoprotegerin ligand) was identified, cloned, and synthesized36; soluble antagonists were then developed and are being evaluated in clinical trials to prevent bone loss.37 The speed of drug discovery will have to be met by development of mechanisms for targeted delivery of the drug only to the tissue or cells of interest. The combination of cellular, molecular, and diagnostic techniques together with newly developed analysis systems for processing this information will provide an opportunity for rapid clinical advances. These approaches will be particularly applicable to congenital, developmental, and degenerative conditions.
In addition to knowledge of the molecular bases of musculoskeletal diseases, orthopedic devices have also benefited from a combination of bioengineering, chemistry, cell biology, genetics, and medicine (ie, "tissue engineering") that has led to new technologies entering the clinical arena.57-62 Sophisticated computer science has also led to the development of surgical robotic tools.32
Complementing basic research are newly emerging approaches to assessing the short- and long-term outcomes of orthopedic interventions. These approaches provide objective means to determine the impact of treatments on the quality of life of individuals, as well as the economic impact on society. In this period of "evidence-based medicine," it is now practical to determine whether new treatments achieve their purpose.
Cutting-Edge Research Activities
A number of new tools and approaches are likely to lead to changes in the practice of orthopedics during the next 25 years. Innovative diagnostic techniques will enable surgeons to obtain detailed information on the quality of musculoskeletal tissues at the microscopic level, thus affording earlier opportunities for identification of problems and intervention, and for monitoring the effects of interventions.63-68 Image analysis, 3-dimensional reconstruction, and telemetry will provide this information in formats viewable in the operating room. Functional genomics will facilitate early diagnosis, allowing early prophylactic actions. Although to date orthopedic gene therapy has been limited to animal models,11, 69-71 2 clinical trials for treatment of arthritis are currently in progress.72 Once the identities of the genes contributing to the disease are known, and the proteins resulting from expression of such genes identified and the delivery systems developed, gene therapy is likely to become more widespread.
While tissue engineering in a general sense has been available for decades,58 composite materials mimicking bone and cartilage have only recently become available for clinical use.73 Current research is focused on improving the carriers and selecting cells for incorporation into these composites. Tissue engineers will need to determine what signals organize the matrix produced by cells in the composites (Figure 1). Nanotechnology allows the structure and function of body tissues to be mimicked in the laboratory,74 and these fabricated materials may soon become available for clinical use. Based on current progress it is likely that, in the near future, the use of metals or plastics will be limited: instead, patients will receive cell-based materials. For large bone defects, these composites will have to have mechanical integrity, but they will be more biologically based.
|
|
|
|
Figure. Requirements for Engineering of Bone Tissue
Engineering of bone composite will require selection of appropriate cells at the optimal stage of development, as well as factors that ensure expression of the desired phenotype, matrices that enable bone to perform its mechanical functions, and mineral that both enhances the mechanical properties of bone and enables bone to perform its homeostatic functions.
|
|
|
Based on existing studies and outcomes analysis it is likely that future implants will last longer with less risk of wear or loosening. While this implies fewer revisions, wider use in young individuals may offset some gains while increasing overall quality of life. With increased knowledge of factors controlling bone development and cell differentiation, composite materials4, 75-76 will be fashioned that facilitate ingrowth.
Forecast of Research Advances
Orthopedic surgery in 2025 will be very different from what it is today (Figure B). Current basic science research (eg, genomics, proteomics, tissue engineering, computational chemistry for drug discovery and delivery, and nanotechnology for new materials) will lead to new diagnostic procedures, better prophylactic techniques, earlier interventions, and new materials for repair. Critical elements will include education of clinicians and patients and development of techniques for archiving the vast amounts of data to be generated. The theme will be the same for each of the orthopedic subspecialties (total joints, spine, metabolic bone disease, tumors, and trauma): prevention, early intervention, more focused and effective therapies, and longer-lasting repairs. The orthopedic surgeon will not be out of business, but the approach will be different. Because people are living longer, orthopedic operative practices will probably focus on older individuals, while clinical practice is apt to be focused on diagnosis, prevention, and early intervention in younger individuals. For example, in the case of idiopathic scoliosis, a devastating condition, genetic analyses should facilitate targeted treatment in young children before spinal curvature progresses.
|
|
|
|
Research Opportunities and Forecast: Musculoskeletal Disorders and Orthopedics
|
|
|
As the emphasis shifts from repair to prevention, surgical practice will focus on trauma, work-related disorders and injuries, and revision of the older devices in use today. The economic impact of musculoskeletal conditions should decrease due to changes and procedures now being developed: for example, in utero correction77 of congenital deformities; total joint arthroplasty in young individuals that will last for their lifetimes; biological correction of spine deformities; augmentation of degenerated disks and repair of cartilage defects; and specific repair techniques developed for sex- and sport-specific injury.
Virtual reality technology will be used for surgical training and long-distance surgery. Various specialties are developing approaches to train surgeons realistically without exposing patients to risk. The US Army and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are currently evaluating techniques for robotic surgery, with the surgeon at a distant site. Further developments might lead to the performance of relatively simple surgeries or other forms of treatment at remote or rural sites.
Preventive strategies are illustrated by osteoporosis, a complex genetic disease78 placing some individuals with appropriate diet and exercise histories at high risk for fracture because of genetic factors.79-80 Diet, exercise, and fall prevention are currently stressed by the clinician and the media, and many pharmaceutical agents have been developed to reduce bone loss.23-24,81-82 However, strategies do not yet address the underlying (genetic and molecular) etiologies of the disease. Research must continue to identify the genetic factors that contribute to fracture risk and drugs must be developed to specifically target those factors. A similar set of paradigms should exist for other bone disorders.
Advances based upon burden of disease will nonetheless require effectively translated discoveries and efficiently delivered health care utilizing evidence-based medicine. Basic science discoveries made in the last 25 years have had a major impact on orthopedic practice. The new tools discussed herein are reducing the time required for a discovery to go from bench to bedside. It is critical that the basic science effort continues, that clinical research be expanded, and that the collaboration between the basic scientist and the clinician continues to enable this rapid translation of critical data.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Funding/Support: Dr Boskey's own research as cited in this article was supported by NIH grants DE04141, AR037661, and AR041325. The Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation provided an honorarium to Dr Boskey for preparation of this article.
Acknowledgment: I greatly appreciate the critical review of the manuscript provided by Ohenaba Boachie, MD, Richard Brand, MD, and J. Gregory Kinnett, MD.
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Adele L. Boskey, PhD, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 70th St, New York, NY 10021 (e-mail: BoskeyA{at}HSS.edu).
Author Affiliation: Hospital for Special Surgery, and Weill (Cornell University) Medical College and Graduate School of Medical Sciences, New York, NY.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Delmas PD, Anderson M. Launch of the bone and joint decade 2000-2010. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:95-97.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
2. Praemer A, ed, Furner S, ed, Rice DF, ed. Musculoskeletal Conditions in the United States. Rosemont, Ill: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1999.
3. Urist MR, Mikulski A, Conteas CN. Reversible extinction of the morphogen in bone matrix by reduction and oxidation of disulfide bonds. Calcif Tissue Res. 1975;19:73-83.
ISI
| PUBMED
4. Sandhu HS. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with osteoinductive growth factors. Clin Orthop. 2000;371:56-60.
5. Johnson EE, Urist MR. Human bone morphogenetic protein allografting for reconstruction of femoral nonunion. Clin Orthop. 2000;371:61-74.
6. Ducy P, Karsenty G. The family of bone morphogenetic proteins. Kidney Int. 2000;57:2207-2214.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Betts F, Blumenthal NC, Posner AS, et al. Atomic structure of intracellular amorphous calcium phosphate deposits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975;72:2088-2090.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Boskey AL. Discovery! Amorphous calcium phosphate: the contention of bone. J Dent Res. 1997;76:1433-1436.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Nagano M, Nakamura T, Kokubo T, et al. Differences of bone bonding ability and degradation behaviour in vivo between amorphous calcium phosphate and highly crystalline hydroxyapatite coating. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1771-1777.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Lian JB, Hauschka PV, Gallop PM. Properties and biosynthesis of a vitamin K-dependent calcium binding protein in bone. Fed Proc. 1978;37:2615-2620.
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Ko SC, Cheon J, Kao C, et al. Osteocalcin promoter-based toxic gene therapy for the treatment of osteosarcoma in experimental models. Cancer Res. 1996;56:4614-4619.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Ashton BA, Allen TD, Howlett CR, et al. Formation of bone and cartilage by marrow stromal cells in diffusion chambers in vivo. Clin Orthop. 1980;151:294-307.
13. Richards M, Huibregtse BA, Caplan AI, et al. Marrow-derived progenitor cell injections enhance new bone formation during distraction. J Orthop Res. 1999;17:900-908.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
14. Robey PG. Series introduction: stem cells near the century mark. J Clin Invest. 2000;105:1489-1491.
ISI
| PUBMED
15. Awad HA, Butler DL, Boivin GP, et al. Autologous mesenchymal stem cell-mediated repair of tendon. Tissue Eng. 1999;5:267-277.
ISI
| PUBMED
16. Roughley PJ. The degradation of cartilage proteoglycans by tissue proteinases. Biochem J. 1977;167:639-646.
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Yamashita DS, Dodds RA. Cathepsin K and the design of inhibitors of cathepsin K. Curr Pharm Des. 2000;6:1-24.
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Choi YC, Morris GM, Lee FS, et al. The effect of serum on monolayer cell culture of mammalian articular chondrocytes. Connect Tissue Res. 1980;7:105-112.
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Peterson L, Minas T, Brittberg M, et al. Two- to 9-year outcome after autologous chondrocyte transplantation of the knee. Clin Orthop. 2000;374:212-234.
PUBMED
20. Osborn JF, Newesely H. The material science of calcium phosphate ceramics. Biomaterials. 1980;1:108-111.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
21. Cavagna R, Daculsi G, Bouler JM. Macroporous calcium phosphate ceramic. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 1999;9:403-412.
ISI
| PUBMED
22. Kardos TB, Hubbard MD. Are matrix vesicles apoptotic bodies? Prog Clin Biol Res. 1982;101:45-69.
PUBMED
23. Bergstrom JD, Bostedor RG, Masarachia PJ, et al. Alendronate is a specific, nanomolar inhibitor of farnesyl diphosphate synthase. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2000;373:231-241.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Rickard DJ, Subramaniam M, Spelsberg TC. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of estrogen action on the skeleton. J Cell Biochem. 1999;Suppl 32-33:123-132.
25. Stacey A, Bateman J, Choi T, et al. Perinatal lethal osteogenesis imperfecta in transgenic mice bearing an engineered mutant proalpha 1(I) collagen gene. Nature. 1988;332:131-136.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
26. Jacenko O, Olsen BR, Warman ML. Of mice and men: heritable skeletal disorders. Am J Hum Genet. 1994;54:163-168.
ISI
| PUBMED
27. Kusumi K, Sun ES, Kerrebrock AW, et al. The mouse pudgy mutation disrupts Delta homologue DLL3 and initiation of early somite boundaries. Nat Genet. 1998;19:274-278.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
28. Bulman MP, Kusumi K, Frayling TM, et al. Mutations in the human Delta homologue, DLL3, cause axial skeletal defects in spondylocostal dysostosis. Nat Genet. 2000;24:438-441.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
29. Zaman G, Dallas SL, Lanyon LE. Cultured embryonic bone shafts show osteogenic responses to mechanical loading. Calcif Tissue Int. 1992;51:132-136.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
30. Mosley JR. Osteoporosis and bone functional adaptation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37:189-199.
ISI
| PUBMED
31. Drake JM, Joy M, Goldenberg A, et al. Computer- and robot-assisted resection of thalamic astrocytomas in children. Neurosurgery. 1991;29:27-33.
ISI
| PUBMED
32. Davies B. A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2000;214:129-140.
ISI
| PUBMED
33. Kitazawa R, Kimble RB, Vannice JL, et al. Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist and tumor necrosis factor binding protein decrease osteoclast formation and bone resorption in ovariectomized mice. J Clin Invest. 1994;94:2397-2406.
ISI
| PUBMED
34. Reginster JY, Henrotin Y, Gosset C. Promising new agents in osteoporosis. Drugs R D. 1999;1:195-201.
PUBMED
35. Lark MW, Stroup GB, Hwang SM, et al. Design and characterization of orally active Arg-Gly-Asp peptidomimetic vitronectin receptor antagonist SB 265123 for prevention of bone loss in osteoporosis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;291:612-617.
FREE FULL TEXT
36. Lacey DL, Timms E, Tan HL, et al. Osteoprotegerin ligand is a cytokine that regulates osteoclast differentiation and activation. Cell. 1998;93:165-176.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
37. Itonaga I, Sabokbar A, Murray DW, et al. Effect of osteoprotegerin and osteoprotegerin ligand on osteoclast formation by arthroplasty membrane derived macrophages. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59:26-31.
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Colter D, Class R, DiGirolamo C, et al. Rapid expansion of recycling stem cells in cultures of plastic-adherent cells from human bone marrow. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97:3213-3218.
FREE FULL TEXT
39. Anselme K. Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2000;21:667-681.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
40. Engh GA, Koralewicz LM, Pereles TR. Clinical results of modular polyethylene insert exchange with retention of total knee arthroplasty components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:516-523.
FREE FULL TEXT
41. Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, et al. The effect of hospital-type and operating volume on the survival of hip replacements. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:12-18.
ISI
| PUBMED
42. Ingham E, Fisher J. Biological reactions to wear debris in total joint replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2000;214:21-37.
ISI
| PUBMED
43. Bauer TW, Schils J. The pathology of total joint arthroplasty, II: mechanisms of implant failure. Skeletal Radiol. 1999;28:483-497.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
44. Persson U, Persson M, Malchau H. The economics of preventing revisions in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:163-169.
ISI
| PUBMED
45. Granchi D, Verri E, Ciapetti G, et al. Bone-resorbing cytokines in serum of patients with aseptic loosening of hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:912-917.
46. Termine JD, Belcourt AB, Conn KM, et al. Mineral and collagen-binding proteins of fetal calf bone. J Biol Chem. 1981;256:10403-10408.
FREE FULL TEXT
47. Veber DF, Drake FH, Gowen M. The new partnership of genomics and chemistry for accelerated drug development. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 1997;1:151-156.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
48. Robey PG, Boskey AL. The biochemistry of bone. In: Marcus R, Feldman D, Kelsey J, eds. Osteoporosis. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 1996:95-183.
49. Ezzell C. Beyond the human genome. Sci Am. 2000;283:64-69.
50. Ahrendt SA, Halachmi S, Chow JT, et al. Rapid p53 sequence analysis in primary lung cancer using an oligonucleotide probe array. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:7382-7387.
FREE FULL TEXT
51. Shapiro IM. Discovery: Osf2/Cbfa1, a master gene of bone formation. Clin Orthod Res. 1999;2:42-46.
PUBMED
52. Shi XM, Blair HC, Yang X, et al. Tandem repeat of C/EBP binding sites mediates PPARgamma2 gene transcription in glucocorticoid-induced adipocyte differentiation. J Cell Biochem. 2000;76:518-527.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
53. Lee MS, Lowe GN, Strong DD, et al. TWIST, a basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor, can regulate the human osteogenic lineage. J Cell Biochem. 1999;75:566-577.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
54. Ferguson CM, Miclau T, Hu D, et al. Common molecular pathways in skeletal morphogenesis and repair. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;857:33-42.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
55. Ohlstein EH, Ruffolo RR Jr, Elliott JD. Drug discovery in the next millennium. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2000;40:177-191.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
56. Hutchinson CR. Combinatorial biosynthesis for new drug discovery. Curr Opin Microbiol. 1998;1:319-329.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
57. Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science. 1993;260:920-926.
FREE FULL TEXT
58. Mooney DJ, Mikos AG. Growing new organs. Sci Am. 1999;280:60-65.
ISI
| PUBMED
| |
