The Biology of Healing

Whatever the tissue, healing after injury tends to follow a common sequence, a kind of universal grammar that the body reads out in overlapping stages. The first is haemostasis and inflammation. Within seconds of injury, blood vessels constrict and a clot forms, plugging the breach and creating a temporary scaffold of fibrin. Platelets trapped in that clot are not merely structural; they release a cargo of signalling molecules that summon the cells of repair. There follows an inflammatory phase in which white blood cells, first neutrophils and then macrophages, clear debris and dead tissue and secrete further signals that orchestrate what comes next. Inflammation has a poor reputation in everyday language, but in the biology of healing it is indispensable; without the early inflammatory response, repair falters.

The second phase is proliferation and repair. New blood vessels sprout into the wound in a process called angiogenesis, restoring the oxygen and nutrient supply on which rebuilding depends. Fibroblasts and other repair cells migrate in and lay down a provisional matrix, rich in collagen, that begins to bridge the gap. This new tissue, granulation tissue in a skin wound or soft callus in a fracture, is disorganised and mechanically weak, but it is living, vascular material that can be refined.

The third and longest phase is remodelling and maturation. Here the hastily assembled repair tissue is gradually reorganised. Collagen fibres are broken down and re-laid along the lines of mechanical stress, the tissue is strengthened, excess is removed and the repair slowly comes to resemble, more or less closely, the tissue it replaced. Remodelling can continue for months or years. The degree to which this final phase restores the original architecture, rather than leaving a scar, is one of the great dividing lines in biology, and it is precisely here that bone and disc part company so dramatically.

Bone is the great exception among adult human tissues, because it heals not by scarring but by true regeneration, rebuilding itself as bone rather than as fibrous patch. Understanding of how it does so has been refined over more than a century, and the modern account distinguishes two fundamentally different routes to union.

The first is primary, or direct, healing. This occurs only when the broken ends are held in near-perfect apposition and near-absolute rigidity, conditions that in practice usually require surgical fixation with plates and screws. Under such stable conditions the bone can regenerate lamellar bone and its internal Haversian canal systems directly across the fracture, without forming any visible callus and without passing through a cartilage stage. It is elegant but demanding, requiring an anatomical reduction and a mechanical environment that tolerates almost no movement.

The second and far more common route is secondary, or indirect, healing, and it is the route taken by most fractures that are not rigidly fixed. It proceeds through the fracture haematoma and an inflammatory response, then the formation of a soft cartilaginous callus, its progressive calcification into a hard bony callus, and finally its remodelling into mature bone. This route is remarkable because it recapitulates, in the adult, the very processes by which the skeleton was first built in the embryo. Part of the callus forms by intramembranous ossification, in which bone is laid down directly, and part by endochondral ossification, in which a cartilage model is first made and then replaced by bone, exactly as happens at a growth plate. Marsell and Einhorn, in a widely cited modern review, set out this dual account clearly, and it now underpins the way surgeons think about fracture treatment.

For much of the twentieth century the blood clot that fills a fresh fracture, the fracture haematoma, was regarded as little more than a mess to be cleared away. The modern view could hardly be more different. The haematoma is now understood as the launch pad of the entire healing cascade, a reservoir of platelets and immune cells releasing the signals that recruit stem cells and initiate repair. Experimental removal of the early haematoma impairs healing, and its transplantation can promote bone formation, evidence that it is an active organ of repair rather than passive debris.

Woven through this is the recognition that a controlled inflammatory response is essential to bone healing. The inflammatory phase releases cytokines and growth factors that recruit mesenchymal stem cells, the precursor cells that will become the cartilage and bone of the callus, and coordinate the transition from one phase to the next. Work by Gerstenfeld, Einhorn and colleagues reframed fracture healing as a post-natal developmental process governed in space and time by molecular signals, and later reviews by Claes and others detailed how healthy inflammation drives repair while excessive or prolonged inflammation, as in chronic disease, can derail it. This is a striking reversal of older thinking, in which inflammation was seen chiefly as something to suppress.

Bone is uniquely responsive to the mechanical world it inhabits. In the nineteenth century the anatomist Julius Wolff formalised the observation that bone adapts its internal architecture to the loads placed upon it, laying down material where stress is high and removing it where stress is low, a principle that came to bear his name as Wolff's law. In the late twentieth century Harold Frost refined this into the concept of the mechanostat, the idea that bone behaves like a thermostat for mechanical strain, adding or removing tissue to keep the strain it experiences within a target range. These ideas moved bone from being seen as an inert scaffold to being understood as a living, self-regulating material.

Mechanics govern not only the shape of intact bone but the healing of a fracture. The mechanical environment at the fracture site determines which route healing takes: rigid fixation favours direct healing, while a controlled degree of movement stimulates the abundant callus of secondary healing, and excessive instability produces only fibrous tissue and non-union. The experimental work of Claes and colleagues quantified how the amount and type of interfragmentary movement shape the tissue that forms, turning mechanobiology from a general principle into a design rule for fixation. In 2007, Giannoudis, Einhorn and Marsh synthesised these strands into the influential "diamond concept", which holds that successful bone healing depends on the convergence of several elements: osteogenic cells, an osteoconductive scaffold, growth factors, an adequate mechanical environment and, added in later refinements, a healthy blood supply. Where one corner of the diamond is deficient, the surgeon may reinforce another, a framework that guides the modern management of difficult fractures and failed unions.

Beyond bone, the soft tissues of the musculoskeletal system heal along the common phases described above, but with important differences and with markedly variable success. Tendons and ligaments are dense collagenous structures with a relatively sparse population of cells and a modest blood supply. When they tear, they can heal, but the repair tissue is scar rather than a perfect reconstruction of the original crimped, aligned collagen, and it may remain weaker and less elastic than the tissue it replaced. Sharma and Maffulli, in a well-known review of tendon healing, described how tendon repair proceeds through the familiar inflammatory, proliferative and remodelling phases yet often falls short of full restoration, which is why tendon and ligament injuries can be slow to recover and prone to re-injury.

A revealing contrast within ligaments themselves illustrates how environment shapes healing. The medial collateral ligament of the knee, lying outside the joint and richly supplied, generally heals well after injury. The anterior cruciate ligament, lying inside the joint and bathed in synovial fluid, heals notoriously poorly and often not at all, which is why it is so frequently reconstructed rather than repaired. Woo and colleagues explored exactly this difference, showing that the intra-articular environment, the blood supply and the mechanical demands all conspire to determine whether a ligament can knit itself back together.

Skeletal muscle occupies an intermediate position. It possesses a genuine regenerative capacity thanks to satellite cells, a reserve of muscle stem cells that can proliferate and rebuild damaged fibres. Yet after significant injury this regeneration competes with the formation of scar tissue, and the balance between the two governs how well function returns. The review by Järvinen and colleagues described how muscle injuries heal through phases of degeneration and inflammation, regeneration and then fibrosis, and how excessive scarring can limit recovery. Across all these tissues a common theme emerges: the capacity to heal well tracks closely with blood supply, cell density and the mechanical and chemical environment in which repair must take place.

If bone is the great regenerator, the intervertebral disc and articular cartilage are its opposites, tissues so poorly equipped for repair that injury and degeneration tend to be permanent. The reasons illuminate the whole logic of healing.

The intervertebral disc is the largest avascular structure in the human body. Its central nucleus pulposus has no blood supply of its own; its cells survive on nutrients that diffuse slowly across the cartilage endplates from the vessels of the adjacent vertebrae. Urban, Roberts and colleagues showed in detail how this precarious nutritional supply, combined with a low density of cells embedded in a dense matrix, leaves the disc unable to mount an effective repair response. When the matrix breaks down with degeneration, there is neither the vascular access nor the cellular workforce to rebuild it, and the process tends to progress rather than reverse. The disc's very design, an avascular cushion built for load-bearing rather than for turnover, is the source of its poor healing.

Articular cartilage tells a parallel story. It too is avascular, aneural and sparsely populated with cells, the chondrocytes, which sit isolated in a matrix they cannot easily renew. A superficial injury that does not reach the underlying bone attracts no blood clot and no influx of repair cells, and so does not heal. An injury deep enough to breach the bone does provoke a repair response, but the tissue that forms is fibrocartilage, mechanically inferior to the original hyaline cartilage and prone to wear. Buckwalter, Mankin and Hunziker documented the limits of cartilage repair, and in 2012 Huey, Hu and Athanasiou summarised the field under the pointed title that, unlike bone, cartilage regeneration remains elusive. The poor healing of these two tissues is not an incidental weakness but a direct consequence of avascularity, low cell density and slow matrix turnover, and it is the biological reason that disc degeneration and osteoarthritis have proved so resistant to cure.

Standing back from the individual tissues, the same handful of drivers determines the fate of every repair. The first is blood supply. Healing is an oxygen-hungry, nutrient-hungry business, and the sprouting of new vessels into a wound is a prerequisite for rebuilding. Where blood supply is abundant, as in bone and the medial collateral ligament, healing tends to succeed; where it is absent, as in the disc and cartilage, healing tends to fail. Vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, is the master signal for this angiogenesis, and its role in wound healing has been extensively reviewed.

The second driver is a family of chemical signals, the growth factors, that act as the language of repair. Platelet-derived growth factor, released from the earliest clot, recruits and activates repair cells. The transforming growth factor beta family, which includes the bone morphogenetic proteins, drives the formation of matrix, cartilage and bone. VEGF calls forth blood vessels. Together with a wider cast of cytokines, these molecules coordinate the phases of healing in space and time, and reviews by Barrientos and others have catalogued how each contributes. The discovery that specific, isolable proteins could induce tissue formation transformed the study of healing from descriptive anatomy into molecular biology.

The third driver is mechanical loading. As Wolff and Frost recognised for bone, tissues read and respond to the physical forces upon them, and the mechanical environment can encourage healing, redirect it or prevent it. Too little load and bone weakens; the right load guides collagen and bone along the lines of stress; too much movement at a fracture yields only scar. The interplay of blood supply, molecular signals and mechanics is, in essence, the whole story of why one injury heals and another does not.

The scientific understanding of healing has a long and layered history. For most of recorded medicine, healing was observed and managed but not explained. Surgeons and bonesetters across many cultures knew that a broken limb, immobilised and supported, would often mend, and they developed splints, casts and traction to hold the parts still while nature did its work; but the mechanism was a mystery, often attributed to vital forces or humours.

The rise of the microscope and of cellular biology in the nineteenth century began to change this. As tissues came to be understood as communities of cells, healing could be seen as a cellular process of migration, proliferation and matrix production rather than a mysterious congealing. The concept of inflammation as a purposeful, cell-driven response, rather than simply a sign of disease, took shape in the same era. By the early twentieth century the histological stages of fracture healing, the haematoma, the soft and hard callus and the remodelling of bone, had been carefully described, giving a picture of what happened even if not yet why.

The decisive leap into the molecular era came in 1965, when Marshall Urist made an observation of lasting importance: demineralised bone matrix, implanted into muscle, could induce the formation of entirely new bone at that site. He reasoned that bone must contain a substance capable of instructing uncommitted cells to become bone-forming cells, and he named the phenomenon bone induction. The active agents were eventually identified as the bone morphogenetic proteins, members of the transforming growth factor beta family, and their discovery opened the door to the idea that healing could be understood, and perhaps directed, through defined molecular signals. From that point the history of healing became increasingly a history of growth factors, receptors and genes, and the descriptive tradition of the anatomists merged with the mechanistic ambitions of molecular biology.

One of the most extraordinary chapters in this history shows that understanding healing does not merely explain treatment but can create wholly new treatments. In the mid-twentieth century, working in the Siberian city of Kurgan, the Soviet surgeon Gavriil Ilizarov made a discovery that seemed almost to defy belief: that if a bone is cut and then very slowly pulled apart, a fraction of a millimetre each day, new bone forms continuously in the widening gap, so that the bone can be lengthened or reshaped to a remarkable degree. He called the underlying principle the tension-stress effect, the observation that living tissues under slow, steady tension are stimulated to grow and regenerate.

Ilizarov's work, published in detail in the West only in the late 1980s, established distraction osteogenesis as a technique and demonstrated with great precision how the rate and rhythm of distraction, and the stability of fixation, govern the quality of the new bone. It was a direct harnessing of the biology of bone healing, in effect persuading the body to run its endochondral and intramembranous programmes on demand. The principle has since been applied across orthopaedic and craniofacial surgery, and in the spine it informs the logic of techniques that lengthen or realign the growing skeleton. It stands as a landmark example of how a deep insight into healing biology can be turned into a tool.

The molecular understanding of healing gave rise, from the late twentieth century onward, to an ambition that would once have seemed fanciful: not merely to support the body's own repair but to supply the missing ingredients directly, to engineer regeneration where nature falls short. This is the regenerative, or biologic, era, and it encompasses growth factor therapies, platelet-rich plasma, stem cells and tissue engineering. It is a field of genuine promise and, in equal measure, of considerable hype, and an honest account must hold both in view.

Platelet-rich plasma, or PRP, is prepared by concentrating a patient's own platelets and injecting them into an injured tendon, joint or other tissue, on the rationale that the platelets will release their cargo of growth factors and accelerate repair. The biological logic, described by Foster and colleagues, is sound, and PRP is widely used. Yet the clinical evidence has proved inconsistent. A meta-analysis by Sheth and colleagues of PRP across orthopaedic indications found that the high-quality evidence for benefit was limited and heterogeneous, a sobering counterpoint to the enthusiasm with which the treatment has been adopted. The story of PRP illustrates a recurring pattern in the regenerative field: a plausible mechanism, rapid clinical uptake and evidence that lags well behind the marketing.

Stem cell therapy carries the same tension. Mesenchymal stem cells, capable in the laboratory of becoming bone, cartilage, tendon and other tissues, have been hailed as a route to true regeneration, and reviews such as those by Caterson and colleagues laid out the rationale for their use in musculoskeletal repair. But subsequent critical appraisals, including that of Saltzman and colleagues, have stressed how much of the clinical enthusiasm rests on preliminary or poorly controlled studies, how variable the cell preparations are, and how large the gap remains between the biological potential of these cells and proven, reproducible clinical benefit. For the intervertebral disc in particular, Sakai and Andersson reviewed the considerable obstacles that stand between the appealing idea of injecting cells to regenerate a degenerate disc and its realisation in practice.

Tissue engineering, the attempt to build living replacement tissues from cells, scaffolds and signals, represents the field's furthest ambition, reviewed by Hogan and colleagues among others. Here too the laboratory achievements are real and the clinical translation slow and hard-won. Even the bone morphogenetic proteins, the molecules whose discovery launched the molecular era, offer a cautionary tale: recombinant BMP-2, introduced to promote spinal fusion, was later the subject of a critical review by Carragee and colleagues that documented safety concerns and a gap between the initial claims and the fuller evidence. The lesson threaded through the regenerative era is not that its ideas are wrong, but that biology is intricate, that a mechanism which works in a dish does not always work in a person, and that only careful, controlled evidence can distinguish genuine advance from expensive hope.

The great arc of this history is that each deepening of understanding has changed what surgeons do. The recognition that bone needs stability to heal underpins the entire discipline of fracture fixation, and the finer understanding that different degrees of stability produce different healing routes has refined it, so that fixation is now chosen deliberately to encourage either direct healing or an abundant callus. The recognition that inflammation and the fracture haematoma are essential rather than incidental has tempered the old instinct to clear them away, and has drawn attention to how systemic factors that impair inflammation, such as certain diseases and medications, can impair healing. The diamond concept has given surgeons a systematic way to think about why a fracture has failed to unite and how to help it, by supplying whichever element, cells, scaffold, signals, mechanics or blood supply, is lacking.

The understanding of why some tissues heal poorly has been just as consequential. Knowing that the anterior cruciate ligament will not knit itself explains why it is reconstructed; knowing that cartilage and disc cannot regenerate explains why so much effort goes into preventing their degeneration and into managing rather than reversing it, and why the regenerative field has focused so intently upon them. Distraction osteogenesis showed that healing biology could be actively harnessed. And the molecular era has made it possible, at least in principle, to imagine supplying the signals and cells that a poor healer lacks, even as the evidence continues to sort the workable from the merely hopeful.

Where the field stands now is a place of hard-won realism married to continuing ambition. The phases and drivers of healing are understood in remarkable molecular detail; the reasons for success and failure are largely known; and the tools to intervene are multiplying. Yet the central humility of the subject remains: the body's own repair processes, refined over evolutionary time, are still in most cases more sophisticated than anything medicine can supply, and the surgeon's art lies less in replacing them than in creating the conditions, mechanical, vascular and biological, in which they can do their work. That, in the end, is what the long study of healing has taught, and it is a lesson that continues to shape the treatment of the spine and the whole musculoskeletal system.

Healing is one of the oldest problems in medicine and one of the most quietly astonishing. A broken bone, given the right conditions, does not merely patch itself but rebuilds itself so completely that after a year or two the fracture line can be impossible to find. A cut in the skin closes within days. Yet a torn cartilage surface in a knee, or a degenerated disc in the spine, may never truly repair at all. Why some tissues regenerate and others only scar, and why the body treats a fracture so differently from a disc, are questions whose answers took centuries to assemble and are still being written. This piece is a history of that understanding: how the tissues of the spine and body actually heal, how thinking about healing evolved from the careful observations of early surgeons to the cellular and molecular biology of the present day, and how each shift in understanding reshaped the way spinal conditions are treated. It describes the universal phases of repair, the remarkable biology of bone, the more troublesome healing of soft tissues, and the reasons the intervertebral disc and articular cartilage are such poor healers. It traces the drivers of repair, blood supply, inflammation, mechanical loading and a family of growth factors, and it examines the modern regenerative era of platelet-rich plasma, stem cells and tissue engineering with an honest eye on the distance between promise and proof. It is purely educational; it offers no advice and makes no recommendations.

• —Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury. 2011;42(6):551-555. PMID: 21489527.
• —Einhorn TA. The cell and molecular biology of fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S7-S21. PMID: 9917622.
• —Gerstenfeld LC, Cullinane DM, Barnes GL, Graves DT, Einhorn TA. Fracture healing as a post-natal developmental process: molecular, spatial, and temporal aspects of its regulation. J Cell Biochem. 2003;88(5):873-884. PMID: 12616527.
• —Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA, Marsh D. Fracture healing: the diamond concept. Injury. 2007;38(Suppl 4):S3-S6. PMID: 18224731.
• —Urist MR. Bone: formation by autoinduction. Science. 1965;150(3698):893-899. PMID: 5319761.
• —Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(238):249-281. PMID: 2910611.
• —Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(239):263-285. PMID: 2912628.
• —Jagodzinski M, Krettek C. Effect of mechanical stability on fracture healing - an update. Injury. 2007;38(Suppl 1):S3-S10. PMID: 17383483.
• —Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(1):3-15. PMID: 15038485.
• —Thompson Z, Miclau T, Hu D, Helms JA. A model for intramembranous ossification during fracture healing. J Orthop Res. 2002;20(5):1091-1098. PMID: 12382977.
• —Einhorn TA, Gerstenfeld LC. Fracture healing: mechanisms and interventions. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11(1):45-54. PMID: 25266456.
• —Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Kaspar D, Seidl W, Margevicius KJ, Augat P. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S132-S147. PMID: 9917634.
• —Claes L, Recknagel S, Ignatius A. Fracture healing under healthy and inflammatory conditions. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012;8(3):133-143. PMID: 22293759.
• —Carter DR, Beaupré GS, Giori NJ, Helms JA. Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355 Suppl):S41-S55. PMID: 9917625.
• —Bahney CS, Zondervan RL, Allison P, Theologis A, Ashley JW, Ahn J, Miclau T, Marcucio RS, Hankenson KD. Cellular biology of fracture healing. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(1):35-50. PMID: 30370699.
• —Dimitriou R, Tsiridis E, Giannoudis PV. Current concepts of molecular aspects of bone healing. Injury. 2005;36(12):1392-1404. PMID: 16102764.
• —Singer AJ, Clark RA. Cutaneous wound healing. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(10):738-746. PMID: 10471461.
• —Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453(7193):314-321. PMID: 18480812.
• —Eming SA, Martin P, Tomic-Canic M. Wound repair and regeneration: mechanisms, signaling, and translation. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(265):265sr6. PMID: 25473038.
• —Sharma P, Maffulli N. Tendon injury and tendinopathy: healing and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(1):187-202. PMID: 15634833.
• —Frank CB. Ligament structure, physiology and function. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2004;4(2):199-201. PMID: 15615126.
• —Woo SL, Vogrin TM, Abramowitch SD. Healing and repair of ligament injuries in the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(6):364-372. PMID: 11104400.
• —Järvinen TA, Järvinen TL, Kääriäinen M, Kalimo H, Järvinen M. Muscle injuries: biology and treatment. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(5):745-764. PMID: 15851777.
• —Barrientos S, Stojadinovic O, Golinko MS, Brem H, Tomic-Canic M. Growth factors and cytokines in wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16(5):585-601. PMID: 19128254.
• —Penn JW, Grobbelaar AO, Rolfe KJ. The role of the TGF-β family in wound healing, burns and scarring: a review. Int J Burns Trauma. 2012;2(1):18-28. PMID: 22928164.
• —Bao P, Kodra A, Tomic-Canic M, Golinko MS, Ehrlich HP, Brem H. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in wound healing. J Surg Res. 2009;153(2):347-358. PMID: 19027922.
• —Koh TJ, DiPietro LA. Inflammation and wound healing: the role of the macrophage. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2011;13:e23. PMID: 21740602.
• —Wynn TA. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of fibrosis. J Pathol. 2008;214(2):199-210. PMID: 18161745.
• —Urban JPG, Roberts S. Degeneration of the intervertebral disc. Arthritis Res Ther. 2003;5(3):120-130. PMID: 12723977.
• —Urban JPG, Smith S, Fairbank JCT. Nutrition of the intervertebral disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(23):2700-2709. PMID: 15564919.
• —Sakai D, Andersson GBJ. Stem cell therapy for intervertebral disc regeneration: obstacles and solutions. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11(4):243-256. PMID: 25708497.
• —Buckwalter JA, Mankin HJ. Articular cartilage: degeneration and osteoarthritis, repair, regeneration, and transplantation. Instr Course Lect. 1998;47:487-504. PMID: 9571450.
• —Hunziker EB. Articular cartilage repair: basic science and clinical progress. A review of the current status and prospects. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(6):432-463. PMID: 12056848.
• —Huey DJ, Hu JC, Athanasiou KA. Unlike bone, cartilage regeneration remains elusive. Science. 2012;338(6109):917-921. PMID: 23161992.
• —Foster TE, Puskas BL, Mandelbaum BR, Gerhardt MB, Rodeo SA. Platelet-rich plasma: from basic science to clinical applications. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(11):2259-2272. PMID: 19875361.
• —Sheth U, Simunovic N, Gill G, Klein G, Fu F, Einhorn TA, Schemitsch E, Ayeni OR, Bhandari M. Efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma use for orthopaedic indications: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(4):298-307. PMID: 22241606.
• —Caterson EJ, Nesti LJ, Albert T, Danielson K, Tuan R. Application of mesenchymal stem cells in the regeneration of musculoskeletal tissues. MedGenMed. 2001;3(1):E1. PMID: 11320340.
• —Saltzman BM, Kuhns BD, Weber AE, Yanke A, Nho SJ. Stem cells in orthopedics: a comprehensive guide for the general orthopedist. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016;45(5):280-326. PMID: 27552451.
• —Hogan MV, Walker GN, Cui LR, Fu FH, Huard J. The role of stem cells and tissue engineering in orthopaedic sports medicine: current evidence and future directions. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(5):1017-1021. PMID: 25726331.
• —Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J. 2011;11(6):471-491. PMID: 21729796.

This information is for general patient education and is not a substitute for an individual consultation. Always seek personalised advice from a qualified spinal specialist.