| Literature DB >> 21895497 |
Marianne T Vestermark1, Ellen-Margrethe Hauge, Kjeld Soballe, Joan E Bechtold, Thomas Jakobsen, Jorgen Baas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21895497 PMCID: PMC3242961 DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2011.618909
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop ISSN: 1745-3674 Impact factor: 3.717
Figure 1.Position of the cylindrical implant with mounted end-screws in the proximal humerus with a surrounding 2.7-mm gap filled with allograft mixed with HA or SrHA.
Figure 2.Strontium content of 4.93% for SrHA was determined by X-ray power diffraction (XRPD).
The chemical formulae of SrHA and HA
| SrHA | Ca9.507Sr0.493(PO4)6(OH)2 |
| HA | Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 |
Figure 3.Preparation of the specimens and the transverse cutting method for the histomorphometrical analysis.
Figure 4.Manually drawn region of interest (ROI) 2.45 mm from the implant surface, shown by the complete circle. BGE, implant with porous coating of beads. The circle with the dashed line shows the approximate position of the drill hole. 1.25× objective.
Intraobserver variation presented as coefficient of variation (%) for all parameters counted
| New bone | Allograft | Fibrous tissue | BGE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gap healing | 8.7 | 18 | 72 | 11 |
| Ongrowth, implant | 15 | 0.0 | 9 | 101 |
| Ongrowth, BGE | 3.7 | 0.0 | 53 | NA |
Figure 5.The implant-bone interface showing gap healing and ongrowth of bone onto the implant and SrHA. New bone (N), preserved allograft (A), ongrowth onto the implant (thin arrow), and ongrowth onto the SrHA (thick arrow). 10× objective.
Figure 8.Paired plot of preserved allograft. The difference in ratio was 1.18 (1.02–1.4); p = 0.03.
Ongrowth of bone onto implant and BGE. Histomorphometrical results of surface area fractions of the implant and BGE presented as mean values in per cent with 95% CI in parentheses. The difference between the 2 treatment arms is presented as a median ratio (95% CI). Variation in the data is presented as CV%
| Treatment arms | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SrHA | HA | Ratio | CV% | p-value | |
| Implant | |||||
| New bone | 15 (10–21) | 13 (7.9–18) | 1.25 (0.86–1.8) | 56 | 0.2 |
| Allograft | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | NA |
| Fibrous tissue | 27 (9.1–45) | 29 (11–46) | 0.59 (0.18–1.9) | 309 | 0.3 |
| BGE | |||||
| New bone | 36 (30–41) | 28 (18–37) | 1.39 (1.1–1.8) | 41 | 0.03 |
| Allograft | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | NA |
Results of the mechanical push-out test presented as mean values with 95% CI in parentheses. The difference between the two treatment arms is presented as median ratio with 95% CI in parentheses. Variation in the data is presented as CV%
| Treatment arms | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SrHA | HA | Ratio | CV% | p-value | |
| Ultimate shear strength, MPa | 2.3 (1.3–3.2) | 2.1 (0.76–3.5) | 1.25 (0.74–2.1) | 75 | 0.4 |
| Apparent shear stiffness, MPa/mm | 12 (7.1–17) | 14 (5–23) | 1 (0.57–1.7) | 83 | 1 |
| Total energy absorption, kJ/m2 | 415 (211–619) | 310 (87–532) | 1.62 (0.93–2.8) | 82 | 0.08 |