| Literature DB >> 21350646 |
F R Baxter1, J S Bach, F Detrez, S Cantournet, L Corté, M Cherkaoui, D N Ku.
Abstract
Bone tunnel healing is an important consideration after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) replacement surgery. Recently, a variety of materials have been proposed for improving this healing process, including autologous bone tissue, cells, artificial proteins, and calcium salts. Amongst these materials are calcium phosphates (CaPs), which are known for their biocompatibility and are widely commercially available. As with the majority of the materials investigated, CaPs have been shown to advance the healing of bone tunnel tissue in animal studies. Mechanical testing shows fixation strengths to be improved, particularly by the application of CaP-based cement in the bone tunnel. Significantly, CaP-based cements have been shown to produce improvements comparable to those induced by potentially more complex treatments such as biologics (including fibronectin and chitin) and cultured cells. Further investigation of CaP-based treatment in the bone tunnels during ACL replacement is therefore warranted in order to establish what improvements in healing and resulting clinical benefits may be achieved through its application.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21350646 PMCID: PMC3042684 DOI: 10.4061/2010/712370
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Tissue Eng ISSN: 2041-7314 Impact factor: 7.813
Figure 1The anatomy of the bones of the knee showing the position of the bone tunnels from (a) frontal and (b) lateral views. The patella and patellar tendons are omitted for clarity.
Mechanical testing of different augmentation methods using calcium phosphates for bone tunnel healing. For ease of comparison and where available, data from mechanical testing at six weeks after surgery are given. Results at earlier and later time points are detailed in the text. Where six week data is not available, the nearest time period is included. aThese values were calculated from the average values in the preceding two columns. bReflects a difference in the predominant mode of failure from pullout failure in the controls to midsubstance failure in the treated subjects. cThis is a low-porosity CaP control, not a nontreated sample.
| Augmentation method | Average increase | Ultimate tensile | Ultimate tensile | Change in mode | Time (weeks) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brushite calcium phosphate cement (CPC) | 118% | 94 ± 42 N | 43 ± 11 N | 6 | [ | |
| Injectable tricalcium | 87% | 62.90 ± 7.62 N | 33.60 ± 5.87 N | 4 | [ | |
| Injectable CaP cement | 110% | 11.491 ± 2.865 N | 5.253 ± 3.955 N | × | 2 | [ |
| Injectable CaP | 65% | 71.8 ± 31.8 N | 43.4 ± 14.8 N | × | 6 | [ |
| Hybridization by | Not statistically significant | 116.9 ± 48.3 N | 109.4 ± 47.2 N | 2/7 failed by pullout in treated group, 3/7 in control | 6 | [ |
| Bulk CaP with | 116% | 12.8 ± 5.9 N | 5.0 ± 1.8 Nc | × | 6 | [ |
Mechanical testing of various augmentation methods for bone tunnel healing. For ease of comparison and where available, data from mechanical testing at six weeks after surgery are given. Results at earlier and later time points are detailed in the text. Where six week data is not available, the nearest time period is included. aThese values were calculated from the average values in the preceding two columns. bReflects a difference in the predominant mode of failure from pullout failure in the controls to midsubstance failure in the treated subjects.
| Augmentation method | Average increase in | Ultimate tensile | Ultimate tensile | Change in mode | Time (weeks) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCSF | 114% | 99.45 ± 25.5 | 31.97 ± 11.9 | 4 | [ | |
| BMP-2 (low dose) | 0% | 142 ± 50 | 143 ± 68 | 4 | [ | |
| BMP-2 (high dose) | Not statistically | 210 ± 66 | 171 ± 20 | 4 | [ | |
| BMP-7 | 77% | 380 ± 33 | 215 ± 44 | 6 | [ | |
| Xenograft-derived | 52% | 64.71 ± 21.36 | 42.69 ± 15.03 | × | 6 | [ |
| Stem cells | 122% | 55.7 (Range 21–90) | 30.6 (Range 18–43) | × | 4 | [ |
| Periosteum | 43% | 46.9 ± 13.3 N/mm | 32.7 ± 13.3 N/mm | 6 | [ | |
| Periosteum | 77% | 57.1 ± 16.7 | 32.23 ± 9.9 | 2/10 failed by pullout in treated group, 1/10 in control | 6 | [ |
| Periosteum with | Not statistically significant | 35.39 ± 9.3 | 32.23 ± 9.9 | 3/10 failed by pullout in treated group, 1/10 in control | 6 | [ |