Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Bone

Silk, metal and bone: why take implants out?

Nature Reviews Rheumatology volume 10, pages 386–387 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Degradable screws and plates for bone surgery have been produced from silk protein. The idea is to eliminate the need to take the implant out when the bone has healed. Will they provide sufficient strength, and will they degrade without causing inflammation? And why take implants out in the first place?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Perrone, G. S. et al. The use of silk-based devices for fracture fixation. Nat. Commun. 5, 3385 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wermelin, K., Tengvall, P. & Aspenberg, P. Surface-bound bisphosphonates enhance screw fixation in rats—increasing effect up to 8 weeks after insertion. Acta Orthop. 78, 385–392 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ambrose, C. G. & Clanton, T. O. Bioabsorbable implants: review of clinical experience in orthopedic surgery. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 32, 171–177 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bostman, O. M. & Pihlajamaki, H. K. Adverse tissue reactions to bioabsorbable fixation devices. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 371, 216–227 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aspenberg, P. Black holes in bone—irresistible attractors of foreign materials? Acta Orthop. 80, 2–3 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Perren, S. M. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 84, 1093–1110 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cordey, J., Perren, S. M. & Steinemann, S. G. Stress protection due to plates: myth or reality? A parametric analysis made using the composite beam theory. Injury 31 (Suppl. 3), C1–C13 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Statistikdatabasen. Socialstyrelsen [online], (2014).

  9. Vopat, B., Kane, P., Fitzgibbons, P., Got, C. & Katarincic, J. Complications associated with retained implants after plate fixation of the pediatric forearm. J. Orthop. Trauma http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.bot.0000435630.63770.3d.

  10. May, C. et al. Complications of plate fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents. J. Child. Orthop. 7, 235–243 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Linköping University, Linköping, SE 581 85, Sweden

    Per Aspenberg

Authors
  1. Per Aspenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Aspenberg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author owns stock in and acts as a consultant for AddBIO AB.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aspenberg, P. Silk, metal and bone: why take implants out?. Nat Rev Rheumatol 10, 386–387 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.57

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.57

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing