Joint academic and industrial efforts towards innovative and efficient solutions for clinical needs

  • Andrea De Pieri
  • Sofia Ribeiro
  • Dimitrios Tsiapalis
  • David Eglin
  • Marc Bohner
  • Peter Dubruel
  • Philip Procter
  • Dimitrios I. Zeugolis
  • Yves BayonEmail author
Special Issue: ESB 2017 Review Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue: ESB 2017


The 4th Translational Research Symposium (TRS) was organised at the annual meeting of the European Society for Biomaterials (ESB) 2017, Athens, Greece, with a focus on ‘Academia—Industry Clusters of Research for Innovation Catalysis’. Collaborations between research institutes and industry can be sustained in several ways such as: European Union (EU) funded consortiums; syndicates of academic institutes, clinicians and industries; funding from national governments; and private collaborations between universities and companies. Invited speakers from industry and research institutions presented examples of these collaborations in the translation of research ideas or concepts into marketable products. The aim of the present article is to summarize the key messages conveyed during these lectures. In particular, emphasis is put on the challenges to appropriately identify and select unmet clinical needs and their translation by ultimately implementing innovative and efficient solutions achieved through joint academic and industrial efforts.



This work received funding from H2020-MSCA-ITN-2015, Tendon Therapy Train Project (Grant Agreement Number: 676338). It has also been supported from the Science Foundation Ireland, Career Development Award (Grant Agreement Number: 15/CDA/3629) and the Science Foundation Ireland and the European Regional Development Fund (Grant Agreement Number: 13/RC/2073).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Gehr S, Garner CC. Rescuing the lost in translation. Cell. 2016;165:765–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marcus HJ, et al. Regulatory approval of new medical devices: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2016;353:i2587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ross CB, et al. From the Schools of public health. Public Health Rep. 2006;121:97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatterji AK, Fabrizio KR. Does the market for ideas influence the rate and direction of innovative activity? Evidence from the medical device industry. Strat Mgmt J. 2016;37:447–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergsland J, Elle OJ, Fosse E. Barriers to medical device innovation. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014;7:205–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farragher JF, et al. Translational research in kidney transplantation and the role of patient engagement. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2015;2:42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy L, and Edwards P, Bridging the valley of death: Transitioning from public to private sector financing. Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Commission. FP7 in Brief: How to get involved in the Framework Programme for Research. Belgium: European Commission; 2007. p 1–32.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lilja, M, et al. Co-precipitation of a therapeutic agent into hydroxyapatite coatings. Amsterdam: Stryker European Holdings I, LLC; 2016.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lilja, M, et al. Method for drug loading hydroxyapatite coated implant surfaces. Amsterdam: Stryker European Holdings I, LLC; 2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Procter, P, et al. Method of manufacturing an implant for use in a surgical procedure. Amsterdam: Stryker European Holdings I, LLC; 2016Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pujari-Palmer M, et al. Influence of cement compressive strength and porosity on augmentation performance in a model of orthopedic screw pull-out. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;77:624–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sladkova M, et al. Fabrication of macroporous cement scaffolds using PEG particles: In vitro evaluation with induced pluripotent stem cell-derived mesenchymal progenitors. Mater Sci Eng C. 2016;69:640–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kisiel M, et al. Complexation and sequestration of BMP-2 from an ECM mimetic hyaluronan gel for improved bone formation. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e78551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serena E, et al. Skeletal muscle differentiation on a chip shows human donor mesoangioblasts’ efficiency in restoring dystrophin in a duchenne muscular dystrophy model. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2016;5:1676–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hannink G, et al. In vivo behavior of a novel injectable calcium phosphate cement compared with two other commercially available calcium phosphate cements. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2008;85:478–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The European Parliament and The Council of The European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices. Off J Euro Union. 2017;60:1–175..Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magill SS, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saadatian-Elahi M, Teyssou R, Vanhems P. Staphylococcus aureus, the major pathogen in orthopaedic and cardiac surgical site infections: a literature review. Int J Surg. 2008;6:238–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:135–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Romano CL, et al. Antibacterial coating of implants in orthopaedics and trauma: a classification proposal in an evolving panorama. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hasan J, Crawford RJ, Ivanova EP. Antibacterial surfaces: the quest for a new generation of biomaterials. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31:295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guimond-Lischer S, et al. Vacuum plasma sprayed coatings using ionic silver doped hydroxyapatite powder to prevent bacterial infection of bone implants. Biointerphases. 2016;11:011012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsekoura E, et al. Battling bacterial infection with hexamethylene diisocyanate cross-linked and Cefaclor-loaded collagen scaffolds. Biomed Mater. 2017;12:035013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ingavle GC, Leach JK. Advancements in electrospinning of polymeric nanofibrous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Tissue Eng B. 2014;20:277–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raimondi MT, et al. Two-photon laser polymerization: from fundamentals to biomedical application in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2012;10:55–65.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ryan C, et al. An academic, clinical and industrial update on electrospun, additive manufactured and imprinted medical devices. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12:601–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abbah S, et al. Harnessing hierarchical nano- and micro-fabrication technologies for musculoskeletal tissue engineering. Adv Health Mater. 2015;4:2488–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Williams CG, et al. Variable cytocompatibility of six cell lines with photoinitiators used for polymerizing hydrogels and cell encapsulation. Biomaterials. 2005;26:1211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ligon SC, et al. Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev. 2017;117:10212–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Houben A, et al. Flexible oligomer spacers as the key to solid-state photopolymerization of hydrogel precursors. Mater Today Chem. 2017;4:84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Amoroso S, Coad A, Grassano N. European R&D networks: a snapshot from the 7th EU Framework Programme. Eco Inno New Tech. 2018;27:404–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Colombo MG, D’Adda D, Pirelli LH. The participation of new technology-based firms in EU-funded R&D partnerships: the role of venture capital. Res Policy. 2016;45:361–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McMurry-Heath M, Hamburg MA. Creating a space for innovative device development. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:163fs43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea De Pieri
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sofia Ribeiro
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Dimitrios Tsiapalis
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Eglin
    • 5
  • Marc Bohner
    • 6
  • Peter Dubruel
    • 7
  • Philip Procter
    • 8
    • 9
  • Dimitrios I. Zeugolis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yves Bayon
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Regenerative, Modular & Developmental Engineering Laboratory (REMODEL)National University of Galway Ireland (NUI Galway)GalwayIreland
  2. 2.Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Centre for Research in Medical Devices (CÚRAM)National University of Galway Ireland (NUI Galway)GalwayIreland
  3. 3.Proxy Biomedical Ltd., CoilleachGalwayIreland
  4. 4.Medtronic Sofradim ProductionTrevouxFrance
  5. 5.AO Research Institute DavosDavosSwitzerland
  6. 6.RMS FoundationBettlachSwitzerland
  7. 7.Polymer Chemistry & Biomaterials Research GroupGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  8. 8.CPP SARL Divonne les BainsDivonne les BainsFrance
  9. 9.Applied Materials Science, Dept Eng. SciencesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations