| Literature DB >> 21106051 |
Rikke F Vestergaard1, Henrik Jensen, Stefan Vind-Kezunovic, Thomas Jakobsen, Kjeld Søballe, John M Hasenkam.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone wax is traditionally used as part of surgical procedures to prevent bleeding from exposed spongy bone. It is an effective hemostatic device which creates a physical barrier. Unfortunately it interferes with subsequent bone healing and increases the risk of infection in experimental studies. Recently, a water-soluble, synthetic, hemostatic compound (Ostene®) was introduced to serve the same purpose as bone wax without hampering bone healing. This study aims to compare sternal healing after application of either bone wax or Ostene®.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21106051 PMCID: PMC3001423 DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-5-117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Figure 1Flowchart: showing how the pigs were in- and excluded.
Exclusion of animals: Distribution of the excluded animals
| Exclusion Criteria | Bone wax-group | Ostene®-group | Control-group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sternal infection | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Intraoperative death | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Poor Thriving | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Non-Union | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 2CT reference lines: Sternum showing the two reference-lines used in the CT-scans. 1: Manubriosternal joint surface. 2: First growth-zone
Figure 3CT-images: CT-images showing good central healing of the sternum in a control pig (left) and decreased central healing in a bone wax pig (right).
Figure 4CT-results showing the bone-density measured in g/cm. Means are indicated by a vertical line.
Figure 5CT-results showing the area of the central defect in the first sternal segment: The difference between bone wax and Ostene. Means are indicated by a vertical line.
Figure 6CT-results showing the area of the central defect in the second sternal segment. The difference between bone wax and Ostene® and bone wax and control = p < 0.001. Means are indicated by a vertical line.
X-ray result: The table shows how the images were allocated according to group and the statistical difference between them.
| Ostene® | Bone Wax | Control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Healing | 2 | Partial Healing | 1 | Total Healing | 2 |
| Partial Healing | 1 | No Healing | 0 | Total Healing | 2 |
| Partial Healing | 1 | Total Healing | 2 | Total Healing | 2 |
| Total Healing | 2 | No Healing | 0 | Partial Healing | 1 |
| Total Healing | 2 | Partial Healing | 1 | Total Healing | 2 |
| Partial Healing | 1 | Partial Healing | 1 | Total Healing | 2 |
| Total Healing | 2 | Partial Healing | 1 | Total Healing | 2 |
| Total Healing | 2 | No Healing | 0 | Total Healing | 2 |
| Mean | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.9 | ||
| Sd | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | ||
| p-value | |||||
| Ostene™ vs. Bone wax | 0.02 | ||||
| Ostene™ vs. Control | 0.26 | ||||
| Bone wax vs. Control | 0.0035 | ||||
The difference between bone wax and Ostene® and bone wax and control = p < 0.001.
1. Total bone healing (perfect alignment of the bone surfaces with no discernable gap)
2. Partial bone healing (misalignment of the bone surfaces with a gap of 5 mm or less)
3. No healing (gap greater than 5 mm)
Figure 7Histology results showing the volume fraction of granuloma to other tissue: The difference between bone wax and Ostene. Means are indicated by a vertical line.